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

P.P. Agency, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Erode

In the results declared by the assessee for the year under consideration vis-à-vis the previous years

ITA 2742/CHNY/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Honourable Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2742/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 P.P. Agency, V. Income Tax Officer, No.21, Periyavalasu Naal Road, Ward-1(1) Erode, Tamil Nadu-638 004. Erode. [Pan: Aamfm0680N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Bhupendran, Advocate, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, Jcit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.07.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Delhi Passed U/S. 250 Of The Act (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dated 07.04.2026 For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2017-18. Grouds Of Appeal 1) The Impugned Order Is Bad, Erroneous & Unsustainable In Law. 2) The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) Erred In Not Considering The Plea Of The Appellant & In Mechanically Sustaining The Action Of The Assessing Officer. 3) Without Prejudice, The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) Also Erred In Not Considering That The Decisions Relied Upon By The Appellant Including That Of The Jurisdictional Itat In The Case Of 'Tasmac' Squarely Applied To The Facts Of The Present Case, As The Sole Reason For Addition By The Assessing Officer Was That The Appellant Had Received Sbns During The Demonetization Period Without Disputing The Nature & Source Of Them. P.P. Agency

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, JCIT
Section 250Section 44ASection 69A