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

Md Abdul Rafik, Tezpur vs. DCIT/ACIT Cir-1, Guwahati

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

ITA 99/GTY/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 May 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Md Abdul Rafik…………………………………………………..…..Appellant M/S Papu Hardware Napam Tezpur, Sonitpur Assam-784001 [Pan: Agupr0228B] Vs. Dcit/ Acit Central Circle-2, Guwahati…………..……...…..…..Respondent Assam-781005 Appearances By: Shri Shekhar Agarwal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 14, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 18, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.02.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Preferred The Appeal Before The Tribunal With A Delay Of 277 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Reasons Stated Therein, We Are Satisfied That There Was A Reasonable Cause Which Prevented The Assessee From Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time. Accordingly, The Delay Of 277 Days Is Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

Arabilachi Vyavasaya Seva Shankar Sangha Limited, Shimoga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shimoga

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

ITA 2736/BANG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Arabilachi Vyavasaya Seva Vs. Ito, Shakar Sangha Ltd., Ward – 1 & Tps, Arebo;Acjo Vssn Ltd., Arabilachi, Shimoga. Arabilchi B.O Arebilachi, Shimoga – 577 233. Pan : Aabaa 7189 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. N. Balusamy, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2026 O R D E R Per Soundararajan K: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of Nfac, Delhi, Dated 30.09.2020 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Credit Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Provisions Of Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act. The Assessee Had Not Filed Its Return Of Income & The Ao Based On The High Value Transaction, Had Issued Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. Even For The Said Notice Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act, Assessee Had Not Responded. It Is The Case Of The Ao That The Assessee Had Deposited Into Their Bank Account A Sum Of Rs.74,11,000/- & Rs.1,54,97,000/- & Page 2 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Balusamy, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 69A