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

Soumyasree Chakraborty, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-25(4), Kolkata

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 250/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 250/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Soumyasree Chakraborty Income Tax Officer, Ward- Hig-A; Flat A-2/2/5 Vs 25(4), Kolkata 1050/2, Survey Park Calcutta Greens Phase 1 Santoshpur S.O. Kolkata - 700075 [Pan : Awfpc4917K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kausik Kumar Das, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2023 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. 28/02/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises From Consideration Is That Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.3,61,000/- On Account Of Deposit Of Cash U/S 69A Of The Act. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Income Of Rs.2,47,640/- Declared In The Return Filed For Assessment Year 2016-17 On 14/06/2016. Case Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass Followed By Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. During

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Kumar Das, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(vi)Section 69Section 69A

Shri S. Tulasidoss Nedunselian, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC - 3 (2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 are allowed

ITA 472/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 & 472/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 S. Tulasidoss Nedunselian Assistant Commissioner Of No. 6, New No. 24, Eb Colony, V. Income Tax, First Main Road, Central Circle 3(2), Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 088. [Pan: Adrpn-8320-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: This Bunch Of Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) -18, Chennai Dated 26.12.2019 & Pertains To Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2017-18. Since, The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order.

For Respondent: Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 144Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 69A