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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh vs. Saraf the Jewellers, Punjab

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1594/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1232/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1594/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) and Sh. Sahil RatraFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 65BSection 69C

Sukhdev Singh Grewal, Ludhiana vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Income Tax Department Ludhiana

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 1308/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1308/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Sukhdev Singh Grewal Ito Ward – 6(1) बनाम/ Vs. 66-F, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Ludhiana, Punjab - 141013 Ludhiana (Punjab) - 141001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abepg-0070-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. I.S. Khurana (Ca) –Ld. Ar (Virtual) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-03-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11-03-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 19-08-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Act On 28-03-2025. Having Heard Rival Submissions, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. 2. Initially, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened & An Assessment Was Framed Against The Assessee On 26-12-2018 Making

For Appellant: Sh. I.S. Khurana (CA) –Ld. AR (Virtual)For Respondent: Sh. Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 69A

Saraf the Jeweller, Chandigarh vs. The DCIT/ACIT Central Circle- 2, Chandigarh

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1232/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1232/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1594/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) and Sh. Sahil RatraFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 65BSection 69C

Durai Mahendran, Tiruvallur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Tiruvallur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 963/CHNY/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:963/Chny/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & S.A. No. 73/Chny/2026 [In Ita No. 964/Chny/2026] Shri Durai Mahendran, The Income Tax Officer, No.334, Vinayakar Koil Street, Vs. Ward 2, 89, Veppampattu, Tiruvallur Tiruvallur – 602 024. Pan: Crmpm 1526L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T.Mythili, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 30.01.2026 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. Ita No.963/Chny/2026 & :- 2 -: Sa No.73/Chny/2026 2. At The Very Outset, We Notice That The First Appellate Authority’S (Faa) Order Is Ex-Parte, Since There Was No Compliance From The Assessee To The Five Notices Issued From The Office Of The First Appellate Authority. Further, We Also Note That The Assessment Has Been Completed On Best Judgment Basis U/S.144 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. T.Mythili, JCIT
Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Shivani Gupta, Delhi vs. Ward 70(1), New Delhi

In the result, the assessee gets further relief of Rs

ITA 7074/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7074/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18) Shivani Gupta, 50, Second Floor, Vigyan Vihar, Delhi 110092 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Afmpg-9292-B बिाम Vs. Ward-70(1), R. No. 1009, E-2, Civic Centre, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri V. Raj Kumar, Advocate प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’) Dated 10.09.2025, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 3 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons Causing Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, The Delay Has Been Caused For The Reasons Stated In Petition Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Thus, Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Decision On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri V. Raj Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 69A