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

Jethanand H Varandani (HUF), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 29(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2521/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2521/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Jethanand H Varandani (Huf) Vs Ito, Ward-29 (1), Kolkata/ Flat No.101, Block-A2, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Brindavan Gardens 98, Department, Mof, Goi Christopher Road, Kolkata-700046 Pan No. : Aaghj 8544 J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 23.10.2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ld.Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Shankar Naskar, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had During The Assessment Year 2017-2018 & The Impugned Assessment Year 2018- 2019 Sold Saree To M/S Faithful Cloth Merchants Pvt. Ltd.. The Total Sales Was To An Extent Of Rs.30,13,950/-, However, It Was The Submission That The Ao Has Taken Figure At Rs.30,11,125/-. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Had Sold During The Assessment Year 2017-2018 Sarees To An Extent Of Rs.15,08,700/- & During The Impugned Assessment Year Sarees Were Sold At Rs.15,02,250/-. The Ld.Ar Drew My Attention To Page 19 Of The 2 Paper Book Which Is Ledger Account Of The Assessee In The Books Of M/S Faithful Cloth Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Which Reads As Follows :-

For Respondent: Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 44ASection 69A

Ganesh Mahato, Durgapur, South Parganas vs. Assistant Commission of Income Tax Circle 26(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, with cost of Rs

ITA 182/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.182/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ganesh Mahato…...……………………..…………………....Appellant Vill. Durgapur, Po- Jaynagar, Majilpur, South 24 Parganas-743337. [Pan: Bgppm6996K] Vs. Acit, Circle-26(1), Kolkata ……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ankit Jalan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.12.2023 Passed By The Nfac [In Short Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,76,470/-. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny. Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued But She Assessee Remained Non-Compliant. The Assessing Officer Observed That Total Deposits In The Assessee'S Bank Accounts With Bank During The Period April 2016 To March 2017 Amounted To Rs.2,00,80,900, Whereas The Assessee Had Shown Only Rs.90,20,200 As Sales. The Excess Deposit Of Rs.1,10,60,700 Was Treated As Unexplained Money Under Section 69A & Added To The Income Of The Assessee.

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Vikash Bafna, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 30(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1192/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1192/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Vikash Bafna Vs Ito, Ward 30(4), 26/6, Hindustan Park Gariahat Aaykar Bhavan, Dakshin, 2, Kolkata-700029 Gariahat Road, Kolkata-700031 Pan No. : Ahcpb 7851 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit Agarwal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Amit Agarwal, Ld Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Shankar Naskar, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Ao Has Treated The Cash Deposit In Assessee'S Bank Account To An Extent Of Rs.12,79,500/- As Unexplained Cash Deposit In The Hands Of The Assessee. It Was The Submission That These Were Amounts Received By The Assessee On Account Of Its Agreement With The Smart Shop Travel & Beyond Operated By One Hermes. It Was Submitted That The Agreement With Hermes Was On 12.06.2014 & The Assessee Had Also Been Disclosing The Income Therefrom. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Has Transferred The Funds To Hermes Also Which Has Not Been Considered By The Ao. It Was The Submission That Admittedly The Assessee Has Not Reconciled The Bank

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. DR