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

Kiran Jitendrakumar Siddhpura, Rajkot vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(2) Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 823/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Sept 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No. 823/Rjt/2026 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-20 Kiran Jitendrakumar Siddhpura, Ito Ward 2(1)(2), Rajkot, Sorathiawadi, 7-Master Society. Vs. It-Office, New Aayakar, Rajkot, Gujarat 360002 Bhawan, Vatiaka, Rajkot, Gujarat 360001 Pan No. Ahdps7341G (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Anadi Dixit, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2026 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2026 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal, Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 18.02.2026 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed U/S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 27.03.2024 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 22 Days Before The Tribunal. When The Matter Was Called For Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee At The Outset Submitted That The Order Had Been Served Through Email To Previous Tax Consultant Of The Assessee, Who Has Failed To Inform The Assessee About The Proceedings Going On Before The Ld.Cit(A), Therefore, Because Of The Mistake Of The Tax Consultant, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Of 22 Days Has Resulted.

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Dixit, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144B(8)Section 147Section 148Section 148BSection 151Section 234A

Manish Jain, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1393/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Udayan Das Guptamanish Jain Vs. Assessment Unit 589, New Sanganer Road Income Tax Department Vivek Vihar Jaipur Income Tax Officer, Ward 302019 7(1), Jaipur "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No:Aelpj 6334 D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Mukesh Khandelwal, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing 02.07.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08.09.2026 O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta, Am:- The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 14.08.2025 Under P A G E | 2 Manish Jain Section250Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:- 1. That On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Assessing Officer As Well As Learned Cit(A) Grossly Erred In Acting Illegally On Facts As Well As In Law, In Assuming, Presuming, On Conjectures & Surmises, In Holding & Making An Addition Of Impugned Amount Of Inr 1,20,00,000 (Rupees One Crores & Twenty Lakhs Only) As Income On Account Of Receipts By Way Of Unexplained Money Under Section 69A Of The Act.

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Abhimanyu Singh Yadav
Section 131Section 250oSection 69A