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

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Gsp Power Systems Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITA 1273/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Gsp Power Systems Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, New Delhi 22, 3Rd Floor, Main Market, Moti Nagar, New Delhi Pan: Aaccg0581H (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.40/Del/2024 [Arising Out Of Ita No.1273/Del/2024] Assessment Year: 2018-19 Gsp Power Systems Pvt. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Ward-10(1), 22, 3Rd Floor, Main Market, New Delhi Moti Nagar, New Delhi Pan: Aaccg0581H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Department By Ms. Suman Malik, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.06.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1273/Del/2024 & Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No. 40/Del/2024 For Assessment Year 2018- 19, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1060727888(1), Dated 09.02.2024, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused. 2. We Notice At The Outset That The Assessee’S Cross Objection Herein C.O. No. 40/Del/2024 Goes To The Root Of The Matter Since Challenging Validity Of The Impugned Assessment Itself Framed By The Learned Assessing Authority On 31St May, 2021. This Is For The Precise Reason That The Assessee’S Case Was Taken Up For Scrutiny On The Twin Issues Of Non-Furnishing Of Quantitative Details & “Investments/Advances/Loans” Whereas It Ended Up In Adding An Amount Of Rs.12,59,97,711/- As Unexplained Cash Credits Under Section 68/69A Of The Act, Which Stands Deleted In The Lower Appellate Discussion. This Is What Leaves The Revenue & The Assessee Aggrieved Who Have Filed Their Instant Appeal & Cross Objection; Respectively.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68