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

Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Ghazipur vs. ITO, Ward - 3(5), Ghazipur

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

ITA 18/VNS/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi13 Apr 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalerakesh Kumar Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bakharipur, Ward 3(5), Mohammadabad, Ghazipur District- Ghazipur Uttar Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh Pan/Gir No. : Axhpg7724R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri O.P. Shukla & Shri Ashutosh Barnwal, Advocates.Ar Respondent By : Shri A.K. Singh. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Rakesh Kumar Gupta 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay In Filing The Appeal & The Assessee Was Suffering From Cancer & Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With Details Of Medical Diagnosis To Substantiate The Reasonable Cause For Delay Of 151 Days In Filing The Appeal. We Have Considered The Facts Mentioned In The Condo Nation Application & Supporting The Evidences & Find That The Assessee Has Explained The Reasonable Cause For The Delay & The Ld. Dr Has No Serious Objections. Accordingly,We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal & Heard.

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Shukla, And Shri Ashutosh BarnwalFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh. DR
Section 115Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69

Rajendra Vithal Avasare, Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 212/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhrajendra Vithal Avasare Vs. Cit-Appeals 6A, Bhaskar, Naikwadi, Nfac, Delhi Goregaon East Maharashtra – 400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Abxpa0468L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : K.K. Lalkaka Respondent By : C.T. Mathews Date Of Hearing 23.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.01.2023 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred By Holding The Order Of The Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of (Rs.1,59,538/- Less Rs.36,887/-) By Ignoring The Salary Certificate In Form No. 16 Issued By The Reserve Bank Of India Upholding The Order Of The Income Tax Officer, A Limb Of The Government & Also By Not Taking Into Consideration The Further Clarificatory Certificate Issued By The Reserve Bank Of India Stating That All Payments Credited To Assessee'S Bank Account Have Been Taken Into Account From Calculating Tds & Salary. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.3,00,000/- Being Genuine Gift Received From His Son, Aditya Avasare Although Trinity Of Evidence Namely Identity, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Donor Has Been Amply Established With Foolproof Evidence By The Appellant & Further Remand Report Issued By The Assessing Officer Approving The Genuineness Of The Gift.

For Appellant: K.K. LalkakaFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 143(2)Section 69A