Section 69A of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.104

Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 104 (Unexplained asset) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 104 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 69A is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 of the 15,297 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 69A

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Sumati Dayal v. CIT
214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court
1,967
citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd.
374 ITR 645 · 2015 · High Court
1,823
citing judgments

In Section 153A proceedings, the scope of assessment extends to abated proceedings, enabling an assessee to raise fresh legal claims that could have been made in regular assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Durga Prasad More
82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court
1,579
citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

K.P. Varghese v. ITO
131 ITR 597 · 1981 · Supreme Court
989
citing judgments

An addition to income cannot be made merely on the basis of a difference in valuation of assets or a Valuation Officer's report without establishing actual understatement of consideration or the source of unexplained funds through proper enquiry. The Assessing Officer must conduct proper enquiry and satisfy the conditions for making such additions.

PCIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd.
397 ITR 82 · 2017 · High Court
786
citing judgments

A statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not by itself constitute incriminating material for making additions to income.

Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
91 ITR 18 · 1973 · Supreme Court
666
citing judgments

Admissions, whether made through entries in account books or statements, are important pieces of evidence but are not conclusive. An assessee has the right to demonstrate that an admission made by them is incorrect or can be retracted.

Tin Box Company v. CIT
249 ITR 216 · 2001 · Supreme Court
624
citing judgments

When an issue is remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the AO must conduct a de novo examination and provide the assessee a full opportunity of being heard. The assessee is bound to comply with the notices issued by the AO.

Judgments on Section 69A

Aanya Realtors, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department / Income Tax Officer Ward -34(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3636/MUM/2026[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Aanya Realtors Assessment Unit Income Tax A-52, Dakshina Park, N S Department / Income Tax Road No. 10, Juhu Scheme, Officer, Ward -34(1)(1), Vs. Mumbai - 400049 Mumbai (Pan: Aatfa0781B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Neelam Jadhav, Advocate Revenue : Smt. Sujatha Iyyanger, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1084607226(1) Dated 09.01.2026, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assessment Unit, U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B & Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 09.05.2023, For Assessment Year 2015- 16. 2.1. Assessee Vide Ground No.1 Before Us, Challenges The Impugned Reassessment Proceedings, Contesting That It Is Barred By The Limitation In View Of The Decision Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Union Of 2 Aanya Realtors Ay 2015-16 India Vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 Taxmann.Com 70 (Sc). Since The Said Ground Of Appeal Goes To The Roots Of The Matter Being Jurisdictional Issue, The Same Is Taken Up For Adjudication. Merits Of The Case Have Not Been Argued Upon By Either Party Nor Any Submission Made To That Effect. Accordingly, We Draw Facts From The Records Relating To Said Legal Ground, Argued Before The Bench.

For Appellant: Ms. Neelam Jadhav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sujatha Iyyanger, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 3Section 3(1)Section 69A

Prakash Hiralal Sejpal, Surendranagar vs. Ward-1 Surendranagar, Surendranagar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 942/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Jul 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 941 & 942/Rjt/2025 [ िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 ] Prakash Hiralal Sejpal, Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, 40 Vishwakunj Society Ratanpar, Surendranagar, Vs. Ratanpar, Surendra Nagar, Surendranagar Joravarnagar S.O 363020, Gujarat-363020 (Gujarat - India) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aerps0356Q (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/07/2026 :: आदेश/Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 & 2021-22, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 13.10.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘Assessing Officer’) U/S 147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

Shri Prakash Hiralal Sejpal, Surendranagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Surendranagar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 941/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Jul 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 941 & 942/Rjt/2025 [ िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 ] Prakash Hiralal Sejpal, Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, 40 Vishwakunj Society Ratanpar, Surendranagar, Vs. Ratanpar, Surendra Nagar, Surendranagar Joravarnagar S.O 363020, Gujarat-363020 (Gujarat - India) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aerps0356Q (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/07/2026 :: आदेश/Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 & 2021-22, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 13.10.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘Assessing Officer’) U/S 147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69A