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

Gautam Sadana, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Range-4(5), Lucknow

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

ITA 497/LKW/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Sept 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2014-15 Gautam Sadana V. Income Tax Officer B-40, B Block Range 4 (5) Rajaji Puram Lucknow Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Cqtps2915P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Dileep Pandey, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Pratibha Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 07 2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 16 09 2026 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.01.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That, During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Totaling To Rs.22,92,300/- In His Saving Bank Account No.2424000100707102 Maintained With Punjab National Bank. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act To The Assessee. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 04.11.2019 Declaring

For Appellant: Shri Dileep Pandey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pratibha Singh, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

Stephen Rodrigues, ACIT, Patiala vs. Ashok Kumar Kaushik, Dera Bassi

In the result, the revenue’s appeal as well as assessee’s cross-objection stand dismissed

ITA 396/CHANDI/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Sept 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Rajesh Damodarlal Sharma, Jm 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.395/Chandi/2026 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.396/Chandi/2026 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit Ashok Kumar Kaushik Income Tax Office, Leela Bhawan बनाम/ Vs. 74/2 Adarsh Nagar, Derabassi Patiala , Punjab – 147001 Punjab – 140507 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abupk-8150-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. Co. No.26/Chandi/2026 (In Ita No.395/Chandi/2026) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. Co. No.27/Chandi/2026 (In Ita No.396/Chandi/2026 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ashok Kumar Kaushik Acit 74/2 Adarsh Nagar, Derabassi बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Office, Leela Bhawan Punjab – 140507 Patiala , Punjab – 147001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abupk-8150-G (Cross Objector) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Smt. Jaishree Sharma (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Jaishree Sharma (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 131Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 201Section 69C

Stephen Rodrigues, ACIT, Patiala vs. Ashok Kumar Kaushik, Derabassi

In the result, the revenue’s appeal as well as assessee’s cross-objection stand dismissed

ITA 395/CHANDI/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Sept 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Rajesh Damodarlal Sharma, Jm 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.395/Chandi/2026 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.396/Chandi/2026 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit Ashok Kumar Kaushik Income Tax Office, Leela Bhawan बनाम/ Vs. 74/2 Adarsh Nagar, Derabassi Patiala , Punjab – 147001 Punjab – 140507 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abupk-8150-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. Co. No.26/Chandi/2026 (In Ita No.395/Chandi/2026) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. Co. No.27/Chandi/2026 (In Ita No.396/Chandi/2026 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ashok Kumar Kaushik Acit 74/2 Adarsh Nagar, Derabassi बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Office, Leela Bhawan Punjab – 140507 Patiala , Punjab – 147001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abupk-8150-G (Cross Objector) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Smt. Jaishree Sharma (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Jaishree Sharma (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 131Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 201Section 69C

Add Ram, Near Hanuman Mandir, Nanuana Tehsil Rania vs. Income Tax Office, Huda Office Sirsa

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 292/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Sept 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Rajesh Damodarlal Sharma, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.292/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Add Ram Income Tax Office बनाम/ Vs. Near Hanuman Mandir, Ward No. 1, Huda Office Sirsa Nanuana Tehsil Rania Distt. Sirsa "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajgpr-8114-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 16.09.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Rajesh Damodarlal Sharma () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad [Cit(A)] Dated 27.01.2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 21.12.2019. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao, After Consideration Of Assessee’S Submissions, Made Addition Of Cash Deposit For Rs.8.12 Lacs U/S 69A Of The Income Tax Act. The Argument That The Deposits Were Sourced Out Of Opening Balance, Withdrawal From Savings Bank & Agricultural Income

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A