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

Minakshi Sharma, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 59(6), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1926/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1926/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2011-12) Minakshi Sharma, A-612, Dilshad Colony, East Delhi, Delhi 110095 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Bsups-4065-G बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ..... "ितवादी/Respondent National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/01/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 09/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 05.10.2023, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 142 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay In Filing Of Appeal. The Reason For Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is On Account Of Medical Exigencies. The Assessee To Substantiate The Reason Has Annexed Medical Records With The Application. After Perusal Of The Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional Or For Want Of Action, But Was For The Reasons Stated In Application Which Appears To Be Bonafide. The Delay

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 39Section 69A

Arumugam Dhandapani, Tiruvannamalai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruvannamalai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2964/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2964/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arumugam Dhandapani, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 25, Velananthal Main Road, Ward 1, Velananthal, Rajapalayam Post, Tiruvannamalai. Tiruvannamalai 606 755. [Pan:Bvwpd5386C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anandd Babunath, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Madan Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Treating Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period As 2

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunath, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madan Kumar, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

M. Kamalakannan, Vellore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 946/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.946/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 M. Kamalakannan Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Rep. By Legal Heir K. Kumaravel, Income Tax, No. 44, Kavi Medicals, Gudiyatham Central Circle 3(4), Road, Pallikonda, Vellore 635 809. Chennai. [Pan:Avspk5120C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. M. Nuzhath Khanam, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Maruthu Pandian, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.02.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 149 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Petition, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Ms. M. Nuzhath Khanam, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Maruthu Pandian, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 69A