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

Rishi Bansal, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4845/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4845/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Ita No. 4846/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Rishi Bansal, Vs Dcit, 132, Doon Palm City, Central Circle, Pathri Bagh, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akvpb7754R Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. N. S. Jangpangi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Dehradun Dated 31.03.2016. 2. In Ita No. 4845/Del/2016, Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee: “1. That The Impugned Proceeding Initiated U/S 153A & Passing The Impugned Order Under That Section Is Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction & Addition Are Also Made Without Any Incriminating Material Found During The Course Of Search. 2. That Having Regard To The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Addition Of Rs.50 Lacs Which Was Made By The Ao Only On The Basis Of Alleged Statement Which Has Even Being Retracted On 09.07.2012 By The Assessee. Thus The Addition Is Not Sustainable. 3. That In Any Case & In Any View Of The Matter Action Of Ld. Cit(A) In Making Addition Of Rs.50 Lacs Is Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.“

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. N. S. Jangpangi, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

Jitendra Gupta, Surajpur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed, in terms of aforestated observation

ITA 56/RPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 56/Rpr/2021 कर िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jitendra Gupta Prop. : M/S Maa Vaishnav Goods Carrier, Salka, Aghina, Surajpur, (C.G.) Pan : Arbpg 1102 H . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.) . . . . . . . ""यथ" / Respondent }Kjk / Appearances Assessee By : Shri S. R. Rao Revenue By : Shri P. K. Mishra सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 10/02/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Assailed Against The Revisionary Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-Raipur-1 [For Short “Pcit”] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, [For Short “The Act”] Vide Order Dt 09/03/2021 For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2015-2016, Which In Turn Emanated Out Of The Assessment Order Dt 28/11/2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer [For Short “Ao”] U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri S. R. RaoFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)Section 44A

Narayanpet Abdulla, Adoni vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Adoni

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

ITA 42/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2017-18 Narayanpet Abdulla, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Adoni – 518301. Ward – 1, Pan : Akvpa5343D. Adoni. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Mrs. S. Sandhya. Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam. Date Of Hearing: 19.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Appeal Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 29.12.2021 For The Ay. 2017-18 On The Following Grounds : “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Is Errenoues Both On Facts & In Law 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Deciding The Appeal Without Providing Opportunity To The Appellant. 3. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Treating The Deposits Made During The Demonetization Period Of Rs.30,32,000/- As The Income Of The Appellant Assessable U/S 69A Of The I.T. Act. 4. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.30,32,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 68 Of The I.T. Act Without Considering The Fact That The Said Amount Represents The Sale Price Received On Sale Of Eggs During The Demonetization Period. 5. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,08,000/- On The Ground That It Represents The Unexplained Expenditure.”

For Appellant: Mrs. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 250Section 68Section 69A