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

Pravina Rajendra Shah, Mumbai vs. Incometax Officer-33(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 6/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.06/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Pravina Rajendra Shah बिधम/ Ito-33(2)(5) B-2-101 1St Floor, Kamla Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Vs. Nagar, M. G. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra Kandivali- West, Mumbai- (East), Mumbai-400051. 400067. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bnqps3396P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/02/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/03/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 03.11.2022 For Ay. 2017-18 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised A Single Issue Challenging The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.15,81,301/- Made By The Ao As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. None Appeared For The Assessee. It Is Noted That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Passed An Ex-Parte Order Since The Assessee Failed To Comply With The Three (3) Notices Issued By Him. It Is Noted That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Decided The Case On Merits & Has Passed An Ex-Parte Order Without Hearing The Assessee & Not On Merits.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta
Section 144Section 69A

Riya Sunil Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-6(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 229/MUM/2023[207-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhriya Sunil Jain Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1114/1115, Clover Ward – 6(2)(1) Regency, Ramji Ashar Room No. 510, 5 Th Floor, Lane, Ghatkopar, Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400077 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Bcepj4734M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Priyanshi Desai Respondent By : C.T. Mathews Date Of Hearing 23.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Solitary Ground Of Appeal Of The Assesse Is Directed Against The Nfac In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.2,45,000/- Made U/S 69A Of The Act On Account Of Cash Deposit In The Bank Account By The Assesse As Unexplained Money. 2. The Fact In Brief Is That Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,20,300/- Was Filed On 31.07.2017. The Case Was Subject To Scrutiny Assessment & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued On 21.09.2018. During The Course Of Assessment The A.O Noticed From The Data Collected From The Bank That Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Rs.2,45,000/- In Bank Account Maintained With Bank Of India Ghatkopar East Branch. During The Course Of Assessment The Assessee

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanshi DesaiFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 69A