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

Harindar Prasad, Ballia vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 169/VNS/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi31 Aug 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Harinder Prasad, Vs. Nfac, Delhi Kharicha Garwar Near Primary School, Ballia 277121, U.P. Pan: Btypp1376E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Arvind Shukla, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Sudipta Paul, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 26.03.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B For The A.Y. 2017-18 Dated 26.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal Simply On The Point Of Imitation Without Addressing The Reasons For Condonation Of Delay Properly. 2. Because The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The High-Pitched Assessment Order Has Been Passed Simply On Conjectures & Surmises Without Appreciating The Submissions On Record & Also Without Giving Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard. 3. Because The Learned Ao As Well As The Learned Cit(A) Have Failed To Appreciate That The Computer Illiterate Rural Trader With Small Turnover Never Got Information About Notices Sent On Portal & Was Prevented Reasonable Responding.

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Shukla, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sudipta Paul, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 68Section 69ASection 80C

Mohd. Akmal, Mau vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is held to be allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 161/VNS/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi31 Aug 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Mohd Akmal, Vs. National Faceless Assessment Jummana Pura, Kopaganj, Mau- Centre (Nfac), Delhi 225305 Pan: Amupa0225D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri. Sudipta Paul, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 17.06.2025 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 13.02.2025. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “(1) Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal Solely For Non-Prosecution, Without Adjudicating On Merits Or Considering The Detailed Grounds & Facts Already On Record & Without Allowing Effective Opportunity Of Hearing, Contrary To The Principles Of Natural Justice. (2) In Any Case, It Is A Law Well Settled That Any Ex-Parte Order Passed Without Deciding The Merits Of The Objections Raised & Evidence Already On Record, Is Invalid & Liable To Be Quashed. (3) Proceedings Under Section 147 Have Neither Been Validly Initiated Nor Concluded In Accordance With The Provisions Of Law, Which Has The Effect Of Rendering The Assessment Order Dated 13.02.2025 As A Whole, Vitiated.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sudipta Paul, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44ASection 69A

Dharmendra Kumar Pandey, Ghazipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(5), Ghazipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is held to be allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 218/VNS/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi31 Aug 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-2018-19 Dharmendra Kumar Pandey, 00, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tilak Nagar Colony, Ghazipur, 3(5), Ghazipur 233001 Pan: Aufpp9026Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dharmendra Tiwari, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Deepak Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 30.07.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2018-19, Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Vide His Order Dated 30.07.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1.That The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Erroneous On The Fact & In The Law. 2. That On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred Both In Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 10082100/- As Unexplained Income Of The Appellant, Made By The Assessing Officer Only On The Basis Of Conjectures & Surmises. Hence, The Appellate Order Is Liable To Be Set Aside For Fresh Consideration. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Ignoring The Income Of The Appellant From His Business Income.

For Appellant: Sh. Dharmendra Tiwari, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 147