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

ITO 23(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Aziz Mehmood Sayyed, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 6311/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6311/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito 23(2)(1), बिधम/ Aziz Mehmood Sayyed A-12, 5Th Floor, Konark Building No. C-10, R.No. Vs. 201, Ito, Bandra Kurla Indraprasth Sarvodaya Complex, Bandra (E), Nagar, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-80 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Amgps0846N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri V. Vidyadhar (Dr) Assessee By: Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 18.07.2014 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -33, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Assessee Claim Of Ltcg, Accepting The Asseessee Working Of Cost Of Acquisition & Allowing Deduction U/S. 54F Of The I.T. Act, 1961. A.Y.2011-12

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Vidyadhar (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 50CSection 54Section 54FSection 69A

Mr Ataur Rahman, Kolkata vs. The ITO, WD-54(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 347/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.347/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Mr. Ataur Rahman Vs. The I.T.O, Wd-54(4), Kolkata Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, 3Rd 2B Jala Lane, Mominpur, Kolkata Floor, Kolkata – 700 016. – 700 027. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aedpr 6801 H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri M. Tiwari Respondent By:Shriarindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/03/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata, In Appeal No.1008/Ito, Wd- 22(4)/Cit(A)-21/Kol/2014-15, Dated 15.12.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 23.12.2011. 2.The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Reads As Follows: “1.That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Has Unjustifiably Confirmed The Addition Of Rs.15,21,500/- Made By Assessing Officer Treating The Said Amount As Unexplained Cash Of The Appellant From Undisclosed Sources. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Has Erred In Not Considering Lessee Deed Of The Property & Considering The Income Under The Head Capital Gain & Business Income. 3. That The Appellate Order As Passed In Against Facts & Is Bad In Law.”

For Appellant: Shri M. TiwariFor Respondent: ShriArindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A