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

Sajjan Kumar Agrawal, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Siliguri

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

ITA 658/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountantmember Andshri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicialmember I.T.A. No.658/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sajjan Kumar Agarwal………….……………..............................……….……Appellant C/O Pradip Lakhotia, 2Nd Floor, Metro Plaza, Sf Road, Siliguri, W.B.- 734005. [Pan:Acrpa8364L] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Siliguri.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Dhiraj Lakhotia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shrivineet Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2024 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Against The Order Dated 02.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre[Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.29,00,000/- As Added By The Assessing Officer Towards Cash Deposits In The Bank Accounts U/S 69A Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Pointed Out That An Application Has Been Filed On 07.11.2024 Under Rule 29A Of The Itat Rules Praying Before The Bench For Admission Of Additional Evidences Comprising Of Affidavit, Voting Card, Adhaar Card, Bank Statement Etc Which Has Huge Bearing In The Correct Appreciation & Adjudication Of The Issue Involved In The Present Appeal. The Ld. Ar Submitted That The

Section 250Section 69A

Arham Gems and Jewellery, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1) (Old Ward-1(3)(1)), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1087/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1087/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Arham Gems & Jewellery The Income Tax Officer C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co., Ca बनाम/ Ward-1(2)(1) V/S. “Kamal Shanti” [Old Ward-1(3)(1)] Nr.Sardar Patel Statue, Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ahmedabad – 380 014 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aasfa 7013 P (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.S. Chhajed, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18-12-2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arising From The Order Dated 26/12/2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69ASection 69B

Gouri Singla, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Siliguri

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 488/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.488/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Gouri Singla………….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant C/O Paramount Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Mangal Pandey Road, Khalpara, Siliguri- 734005. [Pan: Ajbps9966M] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Siliguri…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 16, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.02.2024 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 & Run A Proprietorship Business & Filed Return Of Income On 29.09.2013 For The Relevant Assessment Year Declaring Total Income Of Rs.7,67,610/. Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act As Per Information Received. Accordingly, Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued. In Response To The Notices, The Assessee Has Not Furnished The Requisite Details To The Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer Noticed That The Assessee Had Taken Loan Of Rs.22,00,000/- From Various Lenders During The Assessment Year. He Also Noticed That The Assessee Had Also Cash Deposited Of Rs.5,69,000/- In Her Bank Account.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69A