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

Bhikhu Rajshi Karavadara, Porbandar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(4), Porbandar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is partly allowed

ITA 1097/RJT/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Oct 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1097/Rjt/2026 [ "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 ] Bhikhu Rajshi Karavadara, Income Tax Officer Ward-2(4) G Karavad Ni Dhar, Wadi Vistar At Vs. Porbandar Gujarat 360590 Adwana Ta/Di Porbandar Jamnagar Gujarat- 360590 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Brppk0472D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2026 12/10/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, 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 16.04.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Of The Act, Dated 06.12.2019. 2. When The Matter Was Called For Hearing, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee At The Outset Submitted That Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Belatedly By 430 Days. The Assessee Has Moved A Petition For Condonation Of Delay, Requesting The Bench To Condone The Delay, In Filing Appeal. The Learned Counsel Therefore, Adverted My Attention To The Affidavit Filed In This Regard Citing Reasons For Condonation Of Delay Bhikhu Rajshi Karavadara

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Pritiben Pravinchandra Palan, Rajkot vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Rajkot

In the result, both appeals filed by the different assessees in ITA

ITA 800/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Oct 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 799/Rjt/2025 [ िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 ] Parulben Jerambhai Parsana, Income Tax Officer, Tirupati-7 "Manglam", Vs. Ward-2(2)(3), Bh. Malharhall Nr. Bram Aaykar Bhavan, Samaj, Rajkot, Gujarat-360004 Rajkot, Gujarat-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aizpp0758R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं. /Ita No. 800/Rjt/2025 [ िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20 ] Pritiben Pravinchandra Palan, The Assistant Commissioner Of Block No. 109, Puskardham Vs. Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Rajkot. Society, University Road, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajkot, Rajkot, Gujarat-360005 Gujarat-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agbpp3207C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2026 12/10/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Different Assessees, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders 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

For Appellant: Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69ASection 80G

Parulben Jerambhai Parsana, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), Rajkot

In the result, both appeals filed by the different assessees in ITA

ITA 799/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Oct 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 799/Rjt/2025 [ िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 ] Parulben Jerambhai Parsana, Income Tax Officer, Tirupati-7 "Manglam", Vs. Ward-2(2)(3), Bh. Malharhall Nr. Bram Aaykar Bhavan, Samaj, Rajkot, Gujarat-360004 Rajkot, Gujarat-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aizpp0758R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं. /Ita No. 800/Rjt/2025 [ िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20 ] Pritiben Pravinchandra Palan, The Assistant Commissioner Of Block No. 109, Puskardham Vs. Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Rajkot. Society, University Road, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajkot, Rajkot, Gujarat-360005 Gujarat-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agbpp3207C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2026 12/10/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Different Assessees, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders 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

For Appellant: Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69ASection 80G