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, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vinod Chadha, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6709/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Ward-30(1), Vs. Sh. Vinod Chadha, C/O- Moti Mahal New Delhi Restaurant, 3704, Netaji Subhash Marg, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aadpc9701H (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 219/Del/2014 (In Ita No. 6709/Del/2013) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sh. Vinod Chadha, C/O- Moti Mahal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-30(1), Restaurant, 3704, Netaji Subhash New Delhi Marg, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aadpc9701H (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By Sh. Amit Jain, Sr.Dr Assessee By Sh. Naresh Chandra Agarwal, Ca Date Of Hearing 18.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 13.07.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 20/09/2013 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals)-Xxv, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2009-10. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: 1. On The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting Addition Of Rs. 63,47,405/- Made On Account Of Cash Deposit In Bank Account U/S 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. C.O. No. 219/Del/2014 2. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Correct In Not Appreciating The Prohibition Of Section 19(2) Of The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 On The Opening Of Account By A Partner In His Own Name On Behalf Of The Firm, Which Is Further Not In Consonance With The Terms Of The Partnership Deed Of The Firm M/S. Moti Mahal Restaurant. 3. Whether Learned Cit(A) Is Correct In Not Appreciating That The Bank Account In The Assessee’S Individual Name Was Not The Bank Account Of The Firm M/S. Moti Mahal Restaurant, In Which The Assesse Was A Partner. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave For Reserving The Right To Amend, Modify, Alter, Add Or Forego Any Ground(S) Of Appeal At Any Time Before Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.

Section 148Section 19(2)Section 69A