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

Ravindra Rai, Vaishali vs. ITO, Hajipur

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 456/PAT/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Aug 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Gopalan Gurusamyassessment Year: 2016-17 Ravindra Rai Vs. Ito, Hajipur Mahammadpur Pojha, Mahammadpur Goraul Bihar-844114 [Pan: Bzipr2109H] Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Anand Kumar, Ar Respondent By : Shri Bharat Bhusan Garg, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2026 O R D E R Per Gopalan Gurusamy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 22.04.2026, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”, For Short) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts On Record Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Filed His Return Of Income For A.Y. 2016-17, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,64,440/-. The Assessing Officer Initiated Proceeding U/S 147 Of The Act, Based On Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash To The Tune Of Rs.13,09,50,980/- In His Bank Account With Central Bank Ravindra Rai; A.Y: 2016-17 Of India. The Assessee Failed To Appear Before The Assessing Officer & Respond To The Notices Issued By The Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer Noted That The Turnover Of The Assessee Admitted During The Year Was Rs.4,73,95,830/- & Hence The Balance Of Rs.8,35,55,150/- Was Added To The Total Income As Unexplained Income U/S 69A Of The Act, In The Assessment Order Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act. Aggrieved, The Assessee Preferred Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) With A Delay Of 349 Days. The Ld. Cit(A) Condoned The Delay & Provided Multiple Opportunities To The Assessee To Explain His Case. The Assessee Remained Non-Compliant. Therefore, The Ld. Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal. Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), This Appeal Has Been Preferred Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri Anand Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhusan Garg, CIT DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 69A

Rajiv Panjwani, Lucknow vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5(1), Lucknow

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 665/LKW/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Aug 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita Nos.664 & 665/Lkw/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Rajiv Panjwani V. The Income Tax Officer, 111, Kesab Bhaduri Road, Ward-5(1) Aminabad Park, S.O, Lucknow- Pratyakshkar Bhawan, 226018. Ramtirth Marg, Lucknow- 226001. Pan:Acwpp8188L अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Smt Pratibha Singh, Acit (Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28 07 2026 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 24 08 2026 Pronouncement: O R D E R Per Kul Bharat.: These Appeals, By The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 18.07.2025 Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. First, We Take Up The Appeal Ita. No. 664/Lkw/2025, Pertaining To The A.Y. 2013-14 Is Taken As A Lead Case. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “01. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Proceedings Initiated Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Which Proceedings Being Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law, Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt Pratibha Singh, ACIT (DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 69C