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

Anusha Pagadala, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 260/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 260/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Anusha Pagadala, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-4(3), [Pan No. Clbpp3176L] Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Sashank Dundu, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Ranjan Agarwala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/04/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 23/04/2024 आदेश / Order Aggrieved By The Order Dated 18/01/2024 Passed By The Learned Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Jaipur, (“Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)”), In The Case Of Anusha Pagadala (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Assessee Preferred This Appeal. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Having Rental Income. She Filed Her Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 04/08/2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 4,04,636/- As Income From House Property. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass To Verify Large Value Of Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period & Verification Of Sources Of Property Purchased. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, On The Ground Of The Part/Insufficient Compliance & Invalid Explanation From The Assessee Regarding Nature & Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs. 9 Lakhs With Supporting Documents, Learned Assessing Officer, By Order Dated 05/12/2019, Finalised The Assessment, Treating The Total Amount Of Rs. 9 Lakhs As ‘Un-Explained Money’ Under Section 69A Read With Section 115Bbe Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) For The Year Under Consideration & Added The Same To The Income Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ranjan Agarwala, DR
Section 115BSection 294Section 69A