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

Subodh Debnath, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Raiganj

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1213/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1213/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Subodh Debnath………………………………………….…………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Cldpd3024M] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(4), Kolkata…..…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhro Das, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 01, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 09, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.10.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The A.O To The Tune Of Rs.17,00,000/- Being Cash Deposits During The Demonetization Period, By Wrongly Treating The Same As Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 69A Of The Act.

Section 250Section 69A

Boraiah Sarala Ashwath Narayan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1037/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18 Boraiah Sarala Ashwath Narayan No.375, I Road, Ideal Homes Ito Rajarajeshwarinagar Ward-3(2)(3) Vs. Bangalore 560 098 Bangalore Pan No: Bkipa9121M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sripada M., A.R. Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Dated 12.10.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Is With Regard To Sustaining Of Addition Of Rs.8.2 Lakhs U/S 69A Of The Act By Charging Tax At 60% U/S 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. Facts Of The Case Are That As Per Its Details, The Assessee Is Maintaining Bank Accounts In Canara Bank, Vide A/C.No.2529101021757 & Cash Deposit Made During Period Year Is Rs. 11,40,000/-. The Cash Deposits During The Period Are Made Out Of Previous Cash Withdrawals From The Banks. The Ld. Ao Has Considered The Cash Withdrawals & Worked Out The Withdrawals Available For Redeposit. Boraiah Sarala Ashwath Narayan, Bangalore

For Appellant: Shri Sripada M., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 115BSection 250Section 271ASection 69A