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

Accurate Shoppers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 537/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 537/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Accurate Shoppers Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4(3), 5/1, 4Th Floor Vs Kolkata Room No. 125, Clive Row Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaica9908Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 30/01/2024, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. It Declared Loss Of Rs.65,724/- In The Return Filed On 26/03/2013 For Assessment Year 2012-13. Case Of The Assessee Selected For Scrutiny & After Making Addition Of Rs.8.67 Crores, Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act Completed On 23/03/2015. Thereafter Based On Information Received From Ito, Investigation, Unit-1, Kolkata, Re- Assessment Proceedings Were Carried Out Alleging That The Income Subject To Tax Has Escaped Assessment & Notice Was Issued On 2

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Jagadambal Ramachandran, Hosur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur

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

ITA 1346/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1346/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathambal Ramachandran, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 16/4, First Floor, Thimothis Street, Income Tax, Kumarasamypet, Dharmapuri 636 701. Circle I, Hosur. [Pan: Aifpj5376B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Srikrishna, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2023 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 7 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Effective Issue Arises For Our Consideration Is To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Without There Being Proper Opportunity To The Assessee In The Given Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Srikrishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 69A

Suri Babu Chekuri, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

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

ITA 191/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं/Ita No. 191/Hyd/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Suri Babu Chekuri, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad (Int Taxn)-1, [Pan No. Ajjpc2790D] Hyderabad अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत् यर्थी/Respondent नििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri Vamsi, Ar Appeared For Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Ar (Through Virtual Mode) राजस् व द्वारा/Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/06/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 11/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M: This Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of Shri Suri Babu Chekuri (‘The Assessee’), Against The Order Dated 29/12/2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad, (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Relating To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under : “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 20,25,000/- Towards Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Wholly Unsustainable In Law & On Facts. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals Has Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 20,25,000/- Towards Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act Even Though The Appellant Has The Sufficient Sources For The Said Cash Deposits Made In To His Bank Account.

For Appellant: Shri Vamsi, AR appeared for Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 144Section 69A