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

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Devi Tatiparti, Visakhapatnam

In the result appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 41/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Sept 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.41/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Smt.Devi Tatiparti Circle-3(1) D.No.10-27-7/19 Visakhapatnam Sri Satya Sai Enclave Waltair Uplands Visakhapatnam [Pan : Acipt9989K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.37/Viz/2021 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.41/Viz/2021 Smt.Devi Tatiparti Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax D.No.10-27-7/19 Circle-3(1) Sri Satya Sai Enclave Visakhapatnam Waltair Uplands, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Acipt9989K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri V.Srinivasa Rao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1, Visakhapatnam In Ita

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasa Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, DR
Section 250Section 69A

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Vasantha Babu Valluri, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 34/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Sept 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.34/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Sri Vasantha Babu Valluri Circle-3(1) #1/211, Vasanth Vihar Visakhapatnam Opp. Railway Station, Vizianagaram [Pan : Adipv8680J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.53/Viz/2021 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.34/Viz/2021) Sri Vasantha Babu Valluri Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax #1/211, Vasanth Vihar Circle-3(1) Opp. Railway Station, Visakhapatnam Vizianagaram [Pan : Adipv8680J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.Srinivasa Rao, Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओरसे / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singhthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1, Visakhapatnam In Ita

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.Srinivasa Rao, DR

ACIT 26(3), Mumbai vs. Umakant Laxmidas Manania, Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1217/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1217/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit-26(3) Ms. Vishakha U. Manania R. No. 332, 3Rd Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, (Legal Heir Of Late Shri Umakant बिाम/ Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Laxmidas Manania) 131/6, 1St Floor, Mani Bhuvan Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Jain Society, Sion(W) Mumbai-400 037 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aacpm-0540-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad-Ld. Sr. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya -Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 08/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 13/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 27/11/2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) On 30/12/2016. The Ground Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Ms. Usha Gaikwad-Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Suchek Anchaliya -Ld. AR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69A