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

Akash Jain, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 32(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2248/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.2248/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Akash Jain………………………………..……………………….....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocate Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aoipj6380C] Vs. Ito, Ward-32(3), Kolkata……….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Did Not File Any Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2017-18. An Information Was Received That The Assessee Had Deposited An Amount Of Rs.89,50,000/- In His Bank Account During Demonetization Period. Thereafter, The Case Of Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Requesting Thereon To File Return. In Response To Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, The Assessee Submitted Return Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,37,850/-. Subsequently, Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(2)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

S.M. Steel, Nagapattinam vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kumbakonam

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

ITA 2947/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2947/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 S.M. Steel, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 12 A1, Thanthontrieswarar Sannat Ward 1, Street, Nidur Main Road, Kumbakonam. Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam 609 001. [Pan:Acefs1788D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, We Note That The Assessing Officer Received Information That The Assessee Made Cash Deposit In Current Account With A Banking Company To The Tune Of ₹.1,03,88,000/- & As Per The Tds

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

Pawan Kumar Chhapolia, Cuttack vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 547/CTK/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalवष" Pawan Kumar Chhapolia, Vs Ito, Ward-2(3), Cuttack C/O. Ganpatrai Balabux, Cuttack-753002 Pan No. : Aanpc 9872 F (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" .. िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri Mohit Sheth, Advocate राज"व राज"व क" राज"व राज"व क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Bench : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed In It Appeal No.Cit(A), Cuttack/10391/2019-20, Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1065987293(1), Dated 24.06.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018, On The Following Grounds :- 1. For That Under The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Dismissing The Appeal Without Understanding The Fact & Without Going Through The Materials Furnished Before The Ld. Cit(A). 2. For That Under The Facts & In The Circumstance Of The Case The Amount Of Rs. 10,15,000/- Should Not Have Been Treated As Unexplained Money U/S.69A & The Ld. Ao Should Have Been Accepted The Documentary Evidences Furnished Before Him. 3. For That Under The Facts & In The Circumstance Of The Case The Assessment As Made By The Ld. Ao & Sustained By The Learned Cit(A) Regarding The Addition Of Rs. 10,15,000/- As Unexplained Money U/S.69A Is Arbitrary, Unjustified & Bad-In- Law.

Section 144Section 69A