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

Sanya Dawar, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 35(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1163/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalsanya Dawar Income Tax Officer, C/O Ca Vaibhav Goel, Ward-35(1), 75 Navyug Market, Vs. Delhi. 1St Floor, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201001. Pan-Cmnpd7167E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vaibhav Goel, Ca Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansara, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/07/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [‘Cit(A)’ In Short] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-12/10237/2019- 20 Dated 05.11.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2019 Passed U/S 144 Of The Act For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That Assesse Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income At Rs.4,23,080/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny For The Reason That Cash Was Deposited During Demonetization Period. Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued On 24.09.2018, However, Before The Ao Assessee Has Not Made Any Compliance To Any Of The Sanya Dawar Vs. Ito Notices Issued, Accordingly, The Ao Has Passed The Order U/S 144 Of The Act An Income Of Rs.55,02,130/- By Making Various Additions Which Include The Cash Deposited During The Demonetization Period Of Rs.40,75,000/- Holding As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act.

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Dhirajlal Bhimjibhai Chovatiya, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Veraval

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 905/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 905/Rjt/2026 [ "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 ] Dhirajlal Bhimjibhai Chovatiya The Income Tax Officer Surva, Talala, Gir - Somnath, Ito Wd 4, Jnd, Veraval, Vs. Junagadh, Gujarat-362140 Gujarat-362266 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Awdpc1875C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri R. B. Shah, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/09/2026 :: Order :: Per,Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nac) Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)’], Dated 05.01.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee In This Appeal Is That Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.22,90,500/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 69A Of The Act, Treating The Cash Deposits Made During

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69A