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

Dwelling Appliances Private Limited - Previously Known As Adneet Trade Links Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Delhi

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

ITA 2642/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year : 2017-18 Dwelling Appliances Private V. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-1(3), (Previously Known As Adneet Delhi. Trade Links Private Limited), C-54, Shiv Gali, Kotla Mubarikpur, Delhi – 110 003. Pan : Aagca7676P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate (Through Video Conferencing). Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Senior Dr. Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.05.2026 Order This Appeal In Ita No.2642/Del/2026 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 18.01.2024 Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-12, Mumbai(Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1059846305(1)) Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) , Which Appeal In Turn Has Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 29.11.2019 Passed By The Learned Assessing Office Under Section 143(3) Of The Act(Order No. Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2019- 20/102317809(1)). 2. The Appeal Is Filed Belatedly By 725 Days Beyond The Time Prescribed U/S 253(3) Of The 1961 Act. The Assessee Has Duly Filed An Affidavit Dated 12.03.2026 Praying For Condonation Of Delay. It Is Submitted In The Said Affidavit That The Chartered Accountant Of The Assessee Namely Shri Mahesh Karia Who Was Representing The Matter Before Ld. Cit(A) Died In February, 2026 & A New Counsel Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Was Appointed In The First Week Of March, 2026 & Only Then, The Assessee Came To Know That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Already Dismissed The Appeal Of Assessee By Passing An Ex-Parte

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Dey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Senior DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 253(3)

Vivek Mittal, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4755/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Vivek Mittal Vs Ito 3458 Ff, Sector-3, Ballabgarh, Ward-2(5) Faridabad, Haryana-121004. Faridabad, Haryana Pan-Ciypm6563Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ca & Ms. Raj Kumari, Ca Revenue By Shri Rajesh Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22.05.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.07.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Faridabad/10934/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 25.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In The Business Of Money Transfer Agency Under The License Granted By Payments Service Providers Companies Like Ezspend Prepaid Payments Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Oxigen Service India Pvt. Ltd., Ebix Payments Services Pvt. Ltd. Etc. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 02.02.2018, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 3,19,351/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass For The Year Under Appeal To Verify The Source Of Cash Deposited During The Demonetization Period In Specified Bank Notes (“Sbn”). The Ao Observed That During The Year Under Appeal, The Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Inr 9,22,87,000/- In The Bank Account Out Of Which 40,34,000/- Were Deposited In Sbn During Demonetization Period, Source Of Which Remained Unexplained Therefore, He Made The Addition Of Inr 40,34,000/- U/S 69 Of The Act. Besides This, Ao Has Estimated The Income Of The Assessee @ 2 % Of The Total Deposits In The Bank Account & Accordingly, Further Addition Of Inr 18,45,740/- Was Made.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 69A