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

Chemangattu Jose John, Kottayam vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation, Tvm

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 58/COCH/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Years: 2015-16 Chemangattu Jose John Dcit, Circle International V. Taxation, Tvm Chemangattu House, Koodalloor Post, Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam, Kerala 686595. Pan : Atxpj2649R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri R Krishnan, Ca Respondent By : Shri Suresh Sivanandan, Irs, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.11.2024 Passed By The Dcit Circle Intl. Txn, Tvm (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act (‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That During The Relevant Assessment Year, The Assessee Had Sold Two Agricultural Properties Totaling To Rs.15,59,000/-. The Actual Sale Consideration Was Rs.34,00,000/- & However, As Per Registered Deed, The Sale Consideration Was Rs.15,59,000 & Balance Rs.18,41,000/- Remains Unexplained. The Assessing Officer Made An Addition Of 2 Chemangattu Jose John Rs.18,41,000/- U/S 69A Of The Act As The Assessee Failed To Give Satisfactory Reply Before Him.

For Appellant: Shri R Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, IRS, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 69Section 69A

Akhilesh Singh, Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward - 13(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2216/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyakhilesh Singh, Vs Ito, Ward-13(4), Kolkata 222/1B, G.T.Road, Belurmath, Howrah-711202 Pan No. :Akups 0920 P (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Swati Baid, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 08.10.2024 Passed For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. In The Present Appeal, The Assessee Has Agitated That The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.37,28,280/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S.69A Of The Act By Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee On Account Of Delay Without Affording Sufficient Opportunity To The Assessee. 3. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted Before The Bench That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac U/S. 250 Of The Act Was Without Providing Sufficient Opportunity To The Assessee & As Such The Order Is Bereft Of Natural Justice & Is Liable To Be Set Aside. It Was Also Submitted By The Ld. Counsel That Without Considering The Reasons For Delay Stated By The Assessee The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Has Dismissed The Appeal On Account Of Delay.

For Appellant: Ms. Swati Baid, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kallol Mistry, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 69A