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

M/S. Triveni Handlooms Limited, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 279/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 May 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 M/S. Triveni Handlooms Ltd., Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward- A-27, Am Jaipuria Road, Cantt, 2(3)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, 16/69, Kanpur-208004 Civil Lines, Kanpur-01 Pan: Aaact5391E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Wherein, Vide His Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 13.02.2025, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144(4) For The A.Y. 2018-19 On 23.03.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Id. Ad Has Erred In Reopening & Completing The Reassessment Proceeding In Violation To Mandatory Requirement Under Section 151A Of The Income Tax Act. 1961. 2. That The Id. Ao Has Erred In Reopening & Completing The Reassessment Proceeding U/S 148 & Section 147 R.W.S. 1448 & 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Lawful Jurisdiction. 3. That The Id. Ao Has Erred In Reopening & Completing The Reassessment Of The Appellant On The Reason To Believe Formed On The Basis Of Incorrect Information From The Insight Portal.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 250Section 69A

Shree Jyotiriling Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Sangli vs. ITO Ward - 3, Sangli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 52/PUN/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.52/Pun/2026 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Jyotirling Gramin Bigar Sheti Ito, Ward – 3, Sangli Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Opp. Palus Sahakari Bank M Palus Vs. Post. Palus Sangli-416310 Pan : Aagas1359F अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Department By : Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain Date Of Hearing : 18-05-2026 Date Of 25-05-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.08.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 69 Days In Filing Of This Appeal Before The Tribunal For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Hearing Both The Sides, We Are Of The View That The Delay Is Attributable To The Sufficient Cause. We, Therefore, In Light Of The Decisions Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc) & In The Case Of Inder Singh Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Reported In 2025 Live Law (Sc) 339, Condone The Said Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 80P