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

ACIT, Circlle-34, Kolkata vs. Subhas Kumar Kedia, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1677/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1677/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata Vs Subhas Kumar Kedia, 41, N.S.Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Afnpk 9669 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 05.06.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- I) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order U/S.148A(D) & All Subsequent Proceedings. Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Acknowledge The Fact That The Assesse Had Not Expressed Any Grievance Against The Validity Of Order U/S 148A(D) By Moving Any Writ Petition Which Should Have Been Done In Case Of Any Grievance After Getting The Sald Order U/S.148A(D). Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order When The Ld. Cit(A) Has No Jurisdiction To Deal With The Question Whether The 148A(D) Order Was Passed Validly Or Properly As An Order U/S.148A(D) Is Not An Appealable Order Before Ld. Cit(A) As Per Section 246A.

For Appellant: Ms. Shreya Loyalka, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 246ASection 3Section 69A

Alagarsamy, Dindigul vs. DCIT, Ward-1, Dindigul

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

ITA 315/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 315/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Alagarsamy, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1, Anumantharayan Kottai, Income Tax, Dindigul – 624 001, Ward -1, Tamil Nadu. Dindigul. [Pan: Biqpa-6564-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A.G. Sathyanarayana Advocate ""थ"की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 22.06.2024 Pertains To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 153 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really Prevented In :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri A.G. Sathyanarayana AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 250Section 69A

Income Tax Officer -42(1)(3), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra vs. Krishna Deep Builders, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6240/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am Krishna Deep Builders Ito Ward – 42(1)(3) B/203, 2Nd Floor, Goyal Shopping Arcade, Room No. 715, Kautilya Bhavan, C- Opp. Railway Station, S. V. Road, Vs. 41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Borivali, West, Mumbai – 400092. Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. Aaafk375Q (Assessee) : (Respondent) Ito Ward – 42(1)(3) Krishna Deep Builders Room No. 715, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To B/203, 2Nd Floor, Goyal Shopping C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Arcade, Opp. Railway Station, S. V. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. Road, Borivali, West, Mumbai – 400092. Pan/Gir No. Aaafk375Q (Assessee) : (Respondent) : Shri. Ajay Singh Assessee By Respondent By : Shri. Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The

For Respondent: Shri. Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vi)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 69A

Krishna Deep Builders, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-42(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5768/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am Krishna Deep Builders Ito Ward – 42(1)(3) B/203, 2Nd Floor, Goyal Shopping Arcade, Room No. 715, Kautilya Bhavan, C- Opp. Railway Station, S. V. Road, Vs. 41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Borivali, West, Mumbai – 400092. Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. Aaafk375Q (Assessee) : (Respondent) Ito Ward – 42(1)(3) Krishna Deep Builders Room No. 715, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To B/203, 2Nd Floor, Goyal Shopping C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Arcade, Opp. Railway Station, S. V. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. Road, Borivali, West, Mumbai – 400092. Pan/Gir No. Aaafk375Q (Assessee) : (Respondent) : Shri. Ajay Singh Assessee By Respondent By : Shri. Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The

For Respondent: Shri. Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vi)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 69A

Shri Bishan Dass S/O Sh. Jagat Ram, Kathua vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Kathua

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 451/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm (Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.451/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Bishan Dass Ito, Ward Kathua (S/O Late Shri Jagat Ram) Near Kvk Kathua, बनाम/ Qusba Dayala Chak, Hiranagar Parliwand Kathua. Vs. Kathua (J&K)-184144 184101. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adzpd-8784-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ajay K.Sharma (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manpreet Singh Duggal. – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 24-06-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 10-12-2019. The Assessee Has Failed To Appear During Assessment Proceedings. The Ld. Ar Stated That Additional Evidences Were Not Considered By Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay K.Sharma (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet Singh Duggal. – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 69A