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

Bharatbhai Thakarshibhai Limbasiya, Kuvadava Road vs. ITO WD 2(1)(1), RKT, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 887/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jun 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 887/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) Bharatbhai Thakarshibhai Limbasiya, Ito Wd 2(1)(1), Rajkot, Plot No 17/2 Shri Shivranjni Park Street Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Race No 2 80Ft Road Kuvadava Road Rajkot, Course Ring Road, Rajkot, Rajkot, Gujarat-360003 Gujarat, 360001, "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahspl6455B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ramesh M. Patel, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Ld. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08/06/2026 09/06/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : Order Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section-250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nac) Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)’], Dated 24.09.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147, R.W.S. 144 & 144B Of The Act, Dated 09.03.2024. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Did Not File The Return Of Income Of The Assessment Year 2016-17. Based On The Information Available With The Department, It Was Noticed That The Assessee Had Undertaken The Substantial

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh M. Patel, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Ld. CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Safikul Alam, Sahibganj vs. ITO Ward 3(5), Sahibganj

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 71/RAN/2026[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Jun 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumr Choubey & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2018-19 Safikul Alam.……..……………………….………………………….Appellant Vill Harihara Srikunddist, Distsahibganj, Jharkhand-816101 [Pan No. Aqvpa0202B] Vs. Ito Ward 3(5),......…..………………..…………….………... Respondent Sahibganj, Jharkhand- 816101 Appearances By: Shri Shib Kumar Kedia, A.R. Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Shubham Agarwal, Sr. D.R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 02 June, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 09 June,2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.12.2025 Of The Office Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 147R.W.S.144 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Assessment Year- 2018-19 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Of The Assessee Is That The Assessee Was Non-Filer Of The Income Tax Return. On The Information Available, Ao Found That The Assessee Made Cash Deposits In Current Account Of State Bank Of India & Also Made Cash Withdrawals Amounting To Rs. 20,969,651/- During The Financial Year 2017-18. Ao Has Further Found That Assessee Has Received Contract Amount Of Rs. 323,514/- From Save Solutions Pvt. Ltd But Assessee Did Not File Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19. A Proceeding U/S 147 Where Initiated & Notices Have Been Issued To The Assessee But Assessee Did Not Respond Any Of The Notices, As A Result Of Which, Assessing Officers Assessed The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 212,93,665/- By Making An Addition Of Rs. 209,70,151/- U/S 69A & Rs. 3,23,514/- Against Contract Amount Received.

Section 147Section 147rSection 5Section 69A