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

Assam Timber Traders, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 17/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 17/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Assam Timber Traders, Cuke Pr.Cit-1 Vs. D-8, Kabir Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aacfa 8222 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-1, Jaipur Dated 30/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Pr.Cit- 1, Jaipur Erred In Passing The Order U/S 263 Of The It Act 1961 Which Is Void Ab-Initio Deserves To Be Quashed. 2. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred & Passing The Order U/S 263 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 On The Grounds Which Are Not Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue Or Erroneous.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 115Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 236Section 263Section 40Section 69

Mr.Shafaat M Husain, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5371/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Shafaat M. Husain, Acit – 17(3) 11, Jolly Maker Apts Iii, Mumbai - 400007 Cuffe Parade, Vs. Colaba, Mumbai – 400 005 Pan: Aaaph5013Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ritu Kamal Kishor, A.R. Revenue By : Shri T. Khalsa, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2021 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.07.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Relevant To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. A) The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Passing An Order Without Giving An Opportunity To Explain The Case. The Same Be Considered & Addition Be Deleted. B) The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Not Accepting The Plea Of The New Authorized Representative Of The Assessee With Regard To The Date Of Hearing. The Same Be Considered & An Opportunity Be Given. 2. A) Without Prejudice To The Above, The Ld. Cit (A) Grossly Erred In Not Considering The Amount Of Rs. 4,39,07,574/- Being Inheritance From His Father By Way Of Will. The Same Be Considered & Addition Be Deleted B) The Ld. Cit (A) Has Failed To Consider That The Assessee'S Father Was A Renowned Painter & Hence His Credibility Could Not Be Doubted. The Same Be Considered & Addition Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Ritu Kamal Kishor, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T. Khalsa, D.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

Vinod K Faria, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) -II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 3798/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.3798/Mum/2013 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 2. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.3799/Mum/2013 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 3. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.3800/Mum/2013 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.3801/Mum/2013 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1475/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 6. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1476/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 7. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1477/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Shri Vinod K. Faria Dcit (Osd-Ii), Central Range-7 बिाम/ Flat No. 3, Fairy Manor, 13, Room No. 413, Aayakar Bhavan, Gunbow Street, Fort Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 706 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaapf-1045-J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Hiral Sejpal- Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri H. N. Singh– Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Hiral Sejpal- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh– Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69ASection 69C