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

Shashikant Chimanlal Bhagat, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 18(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4262/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4262/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Shahikant Chimanlal Bhagat, Ito, Ward 18(2)(3), C/O. M/S. Suratwala Nagindas & Co., Mumbai बनाम/ 12/13, Pir Bagdadi Daragah Trust Vs. Chawl, Dr. D. Silva Road, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapb 9713 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Snehal Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Mohandas सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 08.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 22.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 25.3.2011, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2006-07 Vide Order Dated 29.12.2008. 2.1 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Was Enquired About The Credit Of Rs.40 Lacs In His Bank Account With Shamrao Vittal Co-Op Bank, Bandra, Which Was In Fact A Joint Bank Account With His Wife, Smt. Tarulata Bhagat.

For Appellant: Ms. Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri K. Mohandas
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

ITO 18(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Swapna Rajesh Sawant, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4039/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4039/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-18(2)(2), बनधम/ Smt.Swapna Rajesh Sawant, Room No.606, 6Th Floor, Room No.111, Vs. Piramal Chamber, Shivam Bldg, Bhawani Shankar Road, Lalbaug, Dadar(W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400028 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Acnps3695Q अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Assessee By Shri Kirit Sanghavi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13.6.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement:13.6.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Order Dated 19.3.2014 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-29, Mumbai, For Assessment Year 2009-10 By Which The Revenue Is Challenging The Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.10,00,000/- By Accepting The Additional Evidence U/S 46A Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.7.2009 Declaring Total Income At Rs.2,34,919/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessing Officer After Making Certain Disallowances Framed The Assessment U/S 143(3) At Rs.22,45,600/-. Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ao, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A), Who In Turn Deleted The Addition To The Extent Of Rs.10,00,000/-. Being Aggrieved By The Order Of Ld.Cit(A), The Revenue Is In Appeal Before Us.

Section 143(3)Section 46ASection 69A