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

Mingma Sherpa, Gangtok vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Gangtok

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

ITA 1442/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarmamingma Sherpa Vs Ito, Ward-3(1), Gangtok Above Of Ind Selep Tanki, East Sikkim, Gangtok-737101. Pan No. : Dtups1375C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Apurba Saha, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit- Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm : This Appeal By The Assessee Arises Against The Order Dated 28.03.2024 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’). 2. In This Case, The Assessee Did Not File The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration, I.E., A.Y. 2017–18. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Amounting To ₹10,15,14,300 In A Bank Account Maintained With The State Bank Of India, Gangtok Branch. Accordingly, Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Act Were Initiated By Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act After Recording Reasons & Obtaining Necessary Approval From The Competent Authority. Subsequent Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The Act Was Also Issued. However, The Assessee Did Not Comply. Consequently, The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment By Making An 2 Mingma Sherpa Addition Of ₹10,15,14,300 Under Section 69A Of The Act & Taxed The Same Under Section 115Bbe Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Apurba Saha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT- DR
Section 10Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Rajasekar Dhanapal, Kancheepuram vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Tambaram

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

ITA 2299/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2299/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajasekar Dhanapal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 5/45, D Block, Tnhb Quarters, Non Corporate Ward 22(1), Kancheepuram 631 501 Tambaram. Currently Residing At 30 N Gould St Ste R Sheridan Wy 82801. [Pan: Ayrpr1457M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Found This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 354 Days. The Ld. Ar Submits There Was No Communication From First Appellate Authority About The Passing Of Impugned Order Nor Service Of The Order. The Ld. Ar

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 144Section 69A