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

Abdul Wahid Chowdhury, Badarpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Karimganj, Karimganj

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

ITA 9/GTY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.9/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Abdul Wahid Chowdhury..……...…………....….........…..........….…… Appellant Bharat Agencies, Vii.Dighirpar, Badarpur, Karimganj, Assam-788806. [Pan: Aolpc9714Q] Vs. Ito, Ward, Karimganj, Karimganj.………….…..…...…..…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Mody, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amit Kumar Pandey, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 07, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 07, 2023 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 15.11.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Contested The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.10,10,000/- By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 69A Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) To Submit That The Same Is An Ex Parte Order. The Ld. Counsel Has Further Invited Our Attention To Page 2 Of The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) To Submit That The Ld. Cit(A)

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Rajesh Puria, Port Blair vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-3(2), Port Blair

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 514/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajesh Puria Deputy Commissioner Of Income Techmec Electronics Police Temple Vs Tax, Circle-3(2), Port Blair Building Aberdeen Bazar Port Blair Andaman & Nicobar Islan Ut Pincode - 744101 [Pan : Afipp0347J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 22/06/2022 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of Nineteen (19) Days In Filing Of This Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted.

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

Pragati Pallavi, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 86/PAT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 86/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pragati Pallavi Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4), Vs Patna Flat No. 4 A/D Radha Kunj Apartment A.N. Path North S.K. Puri Patna - 800013 [Pan: Awhpp6938C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Alok Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2023 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. 31/08/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition For Undisclosed Cash Deposit U/S 69A Of The Act At Rs. 13,50,000/- Deposited During The Demonetization Period. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. Income Of Rs.8,40,280/- Declared In The Return For Assessment Year 2017-18. On The Basis Of The Reason That Cash Of Rs.18,50,000/- Has Been Deposited In The Bank Account Held By The Assessee With Kotak Mahindra Bank During Demonetization Period, Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Followed By Serving Of Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Submitted That The Assessee Holds A Joint Account Her Husband In Kotak Mahindra Bank A/C No.

For Appellant: Shri Alok Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A