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

P.Srinivasan, Salem vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Hosur

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

ITA 870/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 870/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Ponnusamy Srinivasan, The Income Tax Officer, No.51/19, Venugopalasamy Street, Vs. Ward 1(1), Hosur – 635 109. Hosur. Pan: Gcyps 1607B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T.S. Subramaniam, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1060347000 (1) Dated 30.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Hosur For The Assessment Year 2017-18 U/S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 29.12.2019. 2. At The Outset, The Ld.Ar For The Assessee Stated That The Order Of Cit(A) Is Ex-Parte & There Is No Adjudication By Cit(A)-Nfac On Merits Of The Case. It Was Stated By Ld.Ar That Even On Jurisdictional Ground On New Issue Of 143(2) Of The Act, The Cit(A)-Nfac Has Not Properly Adjudicated The Issue. On Merits, The Issue Is Addition Made By The Ao Of Unexplained Cash Deposit Added U/S.69A Of The Act & Taxed U/S.115Bbe Of The Act Amounting To Rs.31,13,500/- & Assessing ‘Income From Other Sources’ At Rs.22,97,140/-. The Ld.Ar Stated That The Cit(A)-Nfac Has Given His Adjudication As Under:- 6. Ground No. 6: This Ground Pertains To Legality Of Assessment U/S 144 Without Issuance Of Notice U/S 143(2).

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Subramaniam, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

Krishnasamy Maruthupandian, Virudhunagar vs. ITO, Corp Ward 4, Madurai

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

ITA 863/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 863/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Krishnasamy The Income Tax Officer, Maruthupandian, Vs. Corporate Ward-4, D No.2/6/1531 Asari Colony, Madurai. 4Th Street, Satchiyapuram, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar – 626 124. Pan: Agzpm 0804B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Akash, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1058168632 (1) Dated 23.11.2023. The Assessment Was Framed By The Addl./Joint/Deputy/Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14 U/S.147 R.W.S.144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 19.03.2022. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Nfac Confirming The Action Of Ao In Adding The Credits In The Bank Account Amounting To Rs.7,72,83,031/- As Unexplained Money U/S.69A Of The Act By Holding That The Assessee’S Appeal Is Dismissed As Un-Admitted & Infructuous For The Reason That The Assessee Has Not Paid An Amount Equal To The Amount Of Advance Tax In Term Of Section 249(4)(B) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri G. Akash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

Meena Bharat Gohil, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward No 20(2)(2), Lalbaug Parel

In the result, these grounds of appeal of the assessee are restored back to the file of AO

ITA 4803/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 4803/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vs. Meena Bharat Gohil Ito, Ward-20(2)(2) Room No. 60, New Piramal Chamber Bhawan Chawl, Cotton Mumbai. Green, Veer Tanaji Malusare Marg, Kala Chowki S.O. Mumbai-400 033. Pan : Ajnpg2509G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satya Prakash Singh Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By Mrs. Meena Bharat Gohil (The Assessee/Appellant) Against The Appellate Order By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac, Delhi (The Learned Cit – A) For Assessment Year 2017 – 18 Dated 7/11/2023 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (The Act) Dated 24/12/2019 Passed By The Income Tax Officer Ward – 20 (2) (2), Mumbai (The Learned Ao) Was Dismissed. 2. Assessee Aggrieved With The Same Is In Appeal Before Us Challenging The Order Passed By The Learned That Appellate Authority For Passing The Order Can The Addition Under Section 69A In Respect Of Rs. 4,605,000/- Cash Deposited During Demonetization In The Bank Account Of The Assessee Despite Providing Sufficient Explanation With Page 1 Of 6

Section 115BSection 133Section 142Section 143Section 69A

Shri Ganesh Urban Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 196/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.196/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2017-18 Shri Ganesh Urban V The Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Credit Society S Ward-1(1), Aurangabad. Limited, Main Market, Sarafa Galli, Sillod, Auranbabad – 431112. Pan: Aagas6006D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 05.12.2023 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Being Aggrieved By The Order Of Ld. Cit (A), Income Tax Department, Nfac U/S. 250 Of The It Act, 1961 Vide Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1058480083(1), Dated 05/12/2023. The Said Order Is Passed By Dismissing Appeal Filed By The Appellant Society Against The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Ward 1(4), Aurangabad, [Now Ward 1(1), Aurangabad] Hence The Appellant Society Shri Ganesh Urban Cooperative Credit Society Limited [A]

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 69ASection 80Section 80P(2)(a)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-49(1), Kolkata, Ultadanga vs. The Rifle Factory Co-Operative Society Ltd, Ishapore

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 813/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 813/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income The Rifle Factory Co-Operative Tax, Circle – 49(1), Kolkata Vs Society Limited Nawabganj, P.O.- Ishapore Dist. – North 24 Parganas Pin - 743144 [Pan : Aaaat6436E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somak Basu, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Arun Kanti Dutta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 11/05/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Inf Ac Has Passed The Order In Favour Of The Appellant Society Without Giving The Due Opportunity To The Ao As No Letter Calling For Remand Report Was Either Sent/Triggered Through Name-Based/Designation Based Email Of The Ao, But In The Appellate Order, It Is Mentioned That The Ao Was Directed To Submit A Remand Report In This Case On 20.04.2023 When The Ld. Cit Appeal, Imf Ac Accepted Additional/Fresh Documents Like Bank Statement Of Sbi Bank Having Account No. 11223335284 Furnished By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Somak Basu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Dutta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A