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

Shri Satyaveer Singh, Bharatpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Wadr-1, Bharatpur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 975/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 975/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2010-11 Satyaveer Singh, Cuke I.T.O., S/O- Sh. Roop Singh, Vill-Barso, Vs. Ward-1, Bharatpur (Raj)-321001. Bharatpur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Cmbps 4345 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashish Sharma (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Alwar Dated 28/03/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That The Notice Issued U/S 147 Is Per Se Illegal, Arbitrary & Ab-Initio Void & Invalid & Therefore Deserve To Be Quashed & Annulled. 2. That The Assessment Order Dated 26/12/2017 Is Per Se Illegal & Invalid. 3. That The A.O. & Cit(A), Alwar Has Grossly Erred In Treating The Amount Of Rs. 12,22,000/- As Unexplained Money & Making An Addition Of Rs. 12,22,000/- U/S 69A..”

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

Shri. Sanyam Sultania, Mumbai vs. ITO 31 (3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6863/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm) I.T.A. No. 6863/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2011-12) Sanyam Sultania Vs. Ito-31(3)(3) 401, 4Th Floor Bkc, Bandra(E) Prabhu Vijay, Plot No.B-17 Mumbai-400 051 V.M.Road, Kapole Chsl Juhu, Mumbai-400 049 Pan : Cqjps0577D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri R.C.Jain Assessee By Department By Shri Vijay Kumar Menon Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 28 .09.2021 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (Am) :- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-39 Dated 28.03.2019 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under : 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.. 238462/- On Exempt Ltcg Confirmed As Unexplained Money U/S 69A & That Too Without Mentioning In The Notice U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) Whether The Appellant Furnished Inaccurate Particulars/Concealed Income Which Is Bad In Jaw As Per The Catena Of Judgments Cited From Time To Time. 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Even Though Appeal In Respect Of The Quantum Appeal Was Not Yet Heard.

Section 10(38)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A