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

Manish Kumar, Siwan vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 262/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.262/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Manish Kumar………………….……………………………………….…..……Appellant Takkipur, Maharajganj, Siwan, Bihar-841244. [Pan: Djrpk9679G] Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department ....….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anjan Biswas, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 23, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 02.01.2024 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 Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In A Business Of Customer Service Point (Csp) Of Sbi Maharajganj Branch & Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19. An Information Was Received By The Assessing Officer Indicating A Potential Tax Liability During The Year. He Also Noticed That A Sum Of Rs.1,96,17,279/- Was Received As Commission Income During The Assessment Year. The Assessing Officer Thereafter Reopened The Case Of The Assessee U/S 147 Of The Act By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act & The Assessee Failed To Response To The Notice. Subsequently, The

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Mahabir Prasad Jain, Gaya vs. ITO Ward 3(1) Gaya, Gaya

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 354/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Patna23 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.354/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mahabir Prasad Jain………….. ……..……………………....Appellant Tekari Road, Purani Godown, Gaya (Bihar), Bihar- 823001. [Pan: Acbpj8044N] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Gaya……. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Jitendra Kr. Sinha, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ajay Kr. Shukla, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 23, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.10.2023 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. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Submitted That There Is A Delay Of 05 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay Citing Reasonable Grounds. After Considering The Averments Made In The Application, We Condone The Delay. 3. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen & Engaged In The Wholesale Business Of Salt. The Assessee Did Not File A Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year Due To Severe Health Issues. The Assessing Officer Observed That The Assessee Had Made Cash

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Dhaneshwari Devi, Gaya vs. ITO Ward- 3 (1), Gaya

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 242/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.242/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dhaneshwari Devi…………….……………………………………….…..……Appellant Manipur, Buniadganj, Gaya (Bihar) – 823003. [Pan: Aanjpd3158J] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Gaya…….............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Jitendra Kr. Sinha, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ajay Kr. Shukla, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 19, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 23, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.05.2023 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. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld. Ar Stated That There Is Delay Of 9 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal. In This Connection, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Stating Reasons For Such Delay In Filing The Appeal Before This Tribunal. We, After Going Through The Application, Find That There Is Reasonable Cause For The Delay. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 9 Days In Filing The Appeal & Proceed To Adjudicate The Issue On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In A Business Of Power-Loom & Filed His Return Of Income For

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A