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 Ramchandra Dhopeshwarkar, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 913/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Ramchandra Vs. International Tax Dhopeshwarkar, 404/11J Ward 2(1)(1) Neelam Nagar Chs, Room No. 1724, 17Th Phase Ii, Gavan Pada, Floor, Air India Building, Mulund (E), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400081 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Afrpd9868F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Soumendu Kumar Das Date Of Hearing 08.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-56, Mumbai, Dated 15.01.2023 For A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-56, Mumbai, Is Bad In Law On Various Grounds Apart From Being Passed In Gross Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal In Limine On The Alleged Ground Of Delay In Filing The Appeal Without Giving Any Opportunity & Without Appreciating The Fact There Is Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Factually Incorrect. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Dealing With The Grounds Of Appeal Raised Before Him Despite Receiving The Remand Report From The Ld. Ao.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Das
Section 115BSection 144Section 148Section 69A

Vivek Chandrasekar, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corp Ward 17(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 282/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.282/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vivek Chandrasekar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, Flat 3B, Apsaras, Non Corporate Ward 17(4), Sambandam St., G.N. Chetty Road, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aaqpc0458H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Balasubramanian, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi Dated 09.02.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Employee Of Ibm Pvt. Ltd., Chennai & Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 12.06.2017 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.4,92,990/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny To Examine Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Of The Assessee During Demonetization Period & Issued

For Appellant: Shri K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

Muralitaran, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Ward 2, Cuddalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 518/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.518/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Muralitharan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 73, Mannargudi Road Street, Ward 2, Chidambaram, Cuddalore 608 001. Cuddalore. [Pan:Aympm9337L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi Dated 24.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That As Per The Information Available With The Department, The Assessee Made Cash Deposits Amounting To ₹.18,46,270/- & Other Credits Amounting To ₹.56,95,371/- During The Period From 01.04.2011 To 31.03.2012. Since The Assessee Did Not File The 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A