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

Shri Ashok Sharma, Kolkata vs. A.O, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

ITA 788/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 787 & 788/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Shri Ashok Sharma Assessing Officer, Ward-37(1), 162A, G.T. Road, Bally Vs Kolkata Howrah - 711201 [Pan : Aurps7511D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sushil Kumar Pransukha, A/R Revenue By : Shri Prabhas Roy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dt. 05/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13. 2. First We Take Up The Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010- 11. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is In Respect Of Addition Of Rs.32,54,000/- Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Cash Deposited In Bank Account No. 504011032461, Held In The Name Of M/S. Kuldevi Investment In Ing Vysya Bank. The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Made The Impugned Addition Treating The Assessee As The Sole Proprietor Of M/S. Kuldevi Investment.

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar Pransukha, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Prabhas Roy, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 133(6)Section 250

Shri Ashok Sharma, Kolkata vs. A.O., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

ITA 787/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 787 & 788/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Shri Ashok Sharma Assessing Officer, Ward-37(1), 162A, G.T. Road, Bally Vs Kolkata Howrah - 711201 [Pan : Aurps7511D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sushil Kumar Pransukha, A/R Revenue By : Shri Prabhas Roy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dt. 05/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13. 2. First We Take Up The Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010- 11. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is In Respect Of Addition Of Rs.32,54,000/- Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Cash Deposited In Bank Account No. 504011032461, Held In The Name Of M/S. Kuldevi Investment In Ing Vysya Bank. The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Made The Impugned Addition Treating The Assessee As The Sole Proprietor Of M/S. Kuldevi Investment.

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar Pransukha, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Prabhas Roy, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 133(6)Section 250

Chinnasamy Lalithamani, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruchengode

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 308/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.308/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mrs. Chinnasamy Lalithamani Ito 3-10A, Thirunagar Colony 1St Street, बनाम/ Ward-1, Karuveppampatty Post, Tiruchengode. Vs. Tiruchengode Tk, Namakkal-637 304. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ahdpl-7115-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate) (Erode)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Ex-Parte Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] On 16-08-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] On Best Judgment Basis U/S 144 Of The Act On 25- 09-2019. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 110 Days In The Appeal, The Condonation Of Which Has Been Sought By Ld. Ar On The Strength Of Affidavit Of The Assessee. Considering The Contents Of Affidavit & Period

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate) (Erode)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 144Section 69A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore vs. Vijayakumar Banumathy, Coimbatore

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1268/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1268/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Smt. Vijayakumar Banumathy बनाम Non- Corporate Circle-2 130-B, Cross Cut Road, Gandhipuram / Vs. Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 012. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agjpb-2250-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. Cross Objection No.55/Chny/2023 (In Ita No. 1268 /Chny/2023) (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Smt. Vijayakumar Banumathy Dcit 130-B, Cross Cut Road, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle-2 Gandhipuram, Coimbatore-641 012. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agjpb-2250-Q (अपीलाथ"/Cross Objector) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)- Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar (Ca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)