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

Sdpl Land & Builders Private Limited, Sangaria vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-2, Bikaner

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 500/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur14 Aug 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Blesdpl Land & Builders Private Acit/ Dcit Circle 2 Limited Bikaner 44A Industrial Area Sangaria, Sangaria-335063 Pan No. Aaqcs 9253 E Assessee By Rajendra Jain, Advocate (Physical) Revenue By Prerna Choudhary, Addl. Cit-Dr (Physical) Date Of Hearing 10 / 08 / 2026. Date Of Pronouncement 14 / 08 / 2026. Order Per Bench: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. In The Said Case, The Assessing Officer Had Made An Addition Under Section 69A On Account Of Alleged Cash/On-Money Payment Towards Purchase Of Flats In Aradhna Residency, Developed By M/S Om Sokhal Builders & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. The Addition Was Made Primarily On The Basis Of The Excel Sheet Allegedly Found During Survey Proceedings At The Premises Of The Builder & The Statement Of Shri Ram Gopal Sokhal Recorded Under Section 131. 2 Asst. Year: 2013-14 3. At The Outset, It Was Submitted That The Issue Involved In The Present Appeal Is Squarely Covered By The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Itat, Jodhpur Bench, In The Assessee'S Own Case, Namely Sdpl Land & Builders Private Limited V. Acit/Dcit, Circle-02, Bikaner, Ita No. 375/Jodh/2023, Assessment Year 2014-15, Order Dated 15.04.2024. 4. The Facts & Basis Of The Addition In The Present Case Are Materially Identical. The Department Has Relied Upon The Same Survey Proceedings, Third- Party Material/Digital Data & The Alleged Disclosure/Statement Of The Builder To Infer That The Assessee Had Made An Undisclosed Cash Payment. However, No Independent & Corroborative Evidence Establishing The Actual Payment Of Such Alleged On-Money By The Assessee Has Been Brought On Record.

Section 131Section 69A