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

Sumitra Devi Bihani, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Siliguri

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

ITA 2588/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Sumitra Devi Bihani…..………...………..............................……….……Appellant C/O Rexine King, Tera Hotel Building, Sevoke Road, Siliguri-734001. [Pan: Adjpb3235A] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), Siliguri...………….……………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu & Rajeev Mukherjee, Advocates, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborty, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 14, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16 ,2026 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 26.10.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For The Ay 2017-18. 2 After Hearing The Rival Contentions, We Find That The Assessing Officer Framed The Assessment U/S 144 By Making An Addition U/S 69A Of Rs.84,74,102/- During Demonetization Period. In The Appellate Proceedings, The Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee By Passing An Ex Parte Order On Account Of Non-Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee On Different Dates. We Find That The Ld. Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal By Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Without Discussing & Deciding The Issues On Merits When The Assessee Failed To Respond To The Sumitra Devi Bihani Opportunities Provided By The Ld. Cit(A). Under The Circumstances, In Our View, The Interest Of Justice Would Be Well-Served If The Appeal Is Restored To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A) With A Direction To Decide The Same On Merits After Affording Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. Accordingly, We Set Aside The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) & Restore The Issue To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A).

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Navyug Nirman Shaikshanik Sansthan, Patna vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Patna

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

ITA 477/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.477/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Navyug Nirman Shaikshanik Sansthan. …………………....Appellant Guru Kripa, Shiv Raj Yadav Path, Mohanpur, Punaichak, Po- L B S Nagar, Patna, Bihar- 800023. [Pan: Aaefn5170A] Vs. Dcit, Cc-1, Patna………….…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vishal Kr. Adv. Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manab Advak, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.08.2025 Passed By The Cit(A)-3, Patna U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Firm & Had Not Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19. An Information Was Received By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Rs.1,10,77,405/- In The Bank Account During The Relevant Assessment Year. As There Was Reason To Believe That The Amount Of Rs. 1,10,77,405/- Was Escaped Assessment, The Case Of The

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Prem Singh, Chamba vs. ACIT Circle Palampur, Palampur

In the result, the appeal for AY 2017-18 stands partly allowed

ITA 947/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 946/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 947/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Prem Singh Dcit Circle, Palampur बनाम/ The Palace. Chamba Himachal Pradesh - 176061 Vs. Himachal Pradesh – 176310 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aampr-8876-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) (Virtual) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Assessee Is In Further Appeals Before Us For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015-16 & 2017-18 Which Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 22-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 29-12-2017. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Computation Of Capital

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (CIT) (Virtual) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 54Section 54F

Sarupinder Singh Braich, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh

The appeal stands partly allowed accordingly

ITA 73/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.73/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Sarupinder Singh Braich Ito Ward 4(3) बनाम/ Vs. H. No. 273/2, Sec-33A Chandigarh - 160017 Chandigarh -160020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Axhpb-9954-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) - Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 30-09-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 24-12-2019. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. The Perusal Of Order Sheet Entries Would Reveal That None Is Appearing For Assessee Since Past Many

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) - Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A