“summons under section 131”

Search & SeizureSection 131Section 131379 judgments

The decision most relied on for summons under section 131 is CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (159 ITR 78), cited in 897 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on summons under section 131

CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

159 ITR 78 · 1986 · Supreme Court

897

citing judgments

When an assessee provides the identity and address of a creditor or investor for a cash credit or share capital under Section 68, the burden shifts to the Department to establish lack of genuineness or creditworthiness, requiring it to conduct further inquiries; mere non-compliance by third parties to summons cannot be the sole basis for an adverse inference against the assessee.

CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd.

333 ITR 100 · 2011 · High Court

235

citing judgments

If an assessee provides the identity, address, PAN, and banking details of shareholders for share capital or application money received through banking channels, the Assessing Officer must conduct a thorough investigation beyond merely issuing unserved summons before making an addition under Section 68.

CIT v. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd.

397 ITR 136 · 2017 · High Court

222

citing judgments

Mere non-compliance with summons issued under Section 131 does not automatically disprove a transaction, and the Assessing Officer cannot disregard other documentary evidence furnished by the assessee when making additions under Section 68.

Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

353 ITR 171 · 2013 · High Court

130

citing judgments

When an assessee furnishes sufficient evidence proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of loan or share application transactions under Section 68, the Assessing Officer cannot make an addition solely because summons issued to the creditors or subscribers were unserved or went uncomplied with. The inability of the tax authorities to secure the attendance or response of third parties does not automatically negate the evidence provided by the assessee.

Nathu Ram Premchand v. CIT

49 ITR 561 · 1963 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessment is rendered void if the assessee is denied the opportunity to cross-examine a third party whose adverse evidence is used against them. The Assessing Officer possesses powers akin to a civil court for summoning witnesses and enforcing their appearance.

(a) CIT v. Genesis Commet (P) Ltd.

163 Taxmann 482 · 2007 · High Court

citing judgments

An Assessing Officer, when disbelieving an assessee's explanation, must issue summons to the relevant parties for independent verification. No adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee without such an inquiry.

Diagnostics v. CIT

334 ITR 111 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

A party's non-appearance or inability to be found at an address three years after a transaction does not, by itself, prove the party does not exist or that the transaction is not genuine, especially when payments were made via account payee cheques.

(a) CIT Vs. Genesis Commet (P) Ltd. 163 Taxman 482 (Del) (b) CIT v. V. B. Aggarwal

49 ITR 650 · 1963 · High Court

citing judgments

The Income Tax Officer has a duty to assist the assessee in producing evidence by exercising powers such as summoning parties, and an assessee is prejudiced if this duty is not fulfilled.

Judgments citing summons under section 131

Lloyds Metals and Energy Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -7(1), Mumbai

ITA 2641/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153C

assessees had repeatedly failed to furnish the primary evidences of movement of goods and had not produced the directors in response to summons under section 131. The learned DR invited our attention to the detailed narrative of the Assessing Officer regarding seized tally extracts, bank trails, LC documentation

Lloyds Metals and Energy Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 2640/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153C

Gottimukkala Vidya Latha, Vijayawada vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 440/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

noticed that assessee has deposited Rs.65 Lakhs in Specified Bank Notes on 28.11.2016 and Rs.5 Lakhs on 19.12.2016 in the Andhra Bank. Thereafter, summons under section 131 of the Act was issued on 04.10.2019 to ascertain the sources for cash deposits. In response, assessee’s husband appeared and replied that

Viva Boards Private Limited, Nizamabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed

ITA 1303/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

frequent cash deposits in all the bank account statements, thereby raising suspicion relating to the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. Therefore, issued summons under Section 131 of the Act, dated 17-12-2019 to Shri Pattipati Subbarao, Director of the assessee company, to produce all the persons

Mrs. Snehlata Goel, Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax, Cir-3(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1793/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri S K Tulsian and Lata Goel

Section 133(6)Section 2(14)Section 250

also paid the premium amount “Nazarana Fees” for conversion as required under the Rules prescribed in this regard.” 3. The AO issued a summons under section 131 to the Director of M/s Jayesh Industries and based on the statements recorded held that the purchaser would not have purchased the land

Dilip Jawaharlal Varyani, Pune vs. DCIT Circle-8, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 643/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.643/Pun/2025 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year:2011-12 Dilip Jawaharlal Varyani, V The Dy.Commissioner Of S.No.9/2B, Cts No.905, S Income Tax, Circle-8, Vaibhav Vihar, Near Vikram Pune. Vihar, Pimpri, Pune – 411017. Pan: Acapv0521H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarad Vaze, Ca – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde, Irs–Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 19.06.2024 For The A.Y.2011-12 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 26.03.2014. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

going on. Thus, there was no reason for Assessee NOT to produce Mr.Kishore G Ahuja before Assessing Officer as Assessing Officer had issued summons under section 131 of the Act in the name of Kishore G Ahuja. Assessee has never submitted how he knows Mr.Kishore G Ahuja , what were

M/S. Emerald Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Successor to Fast Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1260/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay. After Considering The Petition & The Submissions Made, We Are Satisfied That There Was Sufficient Cause For The Delay. Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

Section 131Section 250Section 68

during the financial year 2011–12.In order to verify the genuineness of the share capital and share premium, summons under section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were issued to the directors and share applicants requiring them to personally appear and furnish details and documentary evidences in support

Himabindu Penmatsa, Seethammadhara vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 211/VIZ/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Balakrishnan Sshri Sandeep Singh Karhailhimabindu Penmatsa, 50-1-66/2, Asr Nagar, Visakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh - 530013 ............... Appellant Pan: Aljpp0714J V/S Income Tax Officer, Infinity Towers, Sankaramatam Road, ……………… Respondent Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 80T

which her brother deposited Rs.7,21,068/- in two instalments on 15.09.2011 and 01.10.2011. Accordingly, the AO during the assessment proceedings, issued summons under section 131 of the Act to the vendor calling for relevant details in connection with his confirmation letter, namely sources of income, link document copy, evidences

Kamlawati Chowhan, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 46(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1247/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the CIT(A). However, due to non-compliance on consecutive dates, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte. The assessee has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal, contending that the authorities below passed the orders without affording a reasonable opportunity to substantiate its claim with supporting evidence. The assessee, therefore, prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to substantiate its case before the Assessing Officer.

Section 131Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

Subsequently, notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. The Assessing Officer also issued summons under Section 131 to the alleged suppliers from whom the assessee had purportedly purchased goods. On the basis of information gathered, the Assessing Officer made an addition

M/S. Vijayanagar Educational Trust, Bengaluru vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2006/BANG/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Hariprasad Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11Section 115TSection 12ASection 13Section 133A

total sum of ₹ 58,770,870/- and has also deposited tax of Rs 1 crore on such disclosure, the assessee was also issued summons under section 131 of the act to the trustees and witnesses and from that he has gathered an information that the activities of the trust

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Somani Services Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 2220/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 250

business of assessee was only investment and during previous year, assessee had received huge share application money along with premium - Assessing “Officer issued summons under section 131 to directors of assessee-company calling upon them to produce proof of identity/PAN card, list of companies where assessee was a director

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Somani Services Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 2219/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 250

Govindam Brj Infra Projects Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Cir-6, Jpr, Jaipur

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1114/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Somani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 270A(1)Section 271Section 44A

assessee, then in order to verify the genuineness of the transaction, identity and creditworthiness of the creditors, the AO should have issued summons under section 131 or notices under section 133(6) of the IT Act, 1961 to these creditors. Law is clear that AO must attempt verification. In this

Harshadkumar Hargovandas Patel, Kalol vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 125/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 55A

contractors and workers who carried out the improvement work. However, the Assessing Officer, without issuing any notices under section 133(6) or summons under section 131 to verify the genuineness of the transactions, summarily disallowed the entire claim merely on the basis of suspicion. The Counsel for the assessee submitted ... confirmation of the broker, the Assessing Officer made no attempt to verify the same. Neither any notice under section 133(6) nor any summons under section 131 was issued to cross-verify the transaction. Instead, the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure merely on the basis of conjecture and surmise

M/S Ankur Developers & Realtors, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is rejected

ITA 428/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 132Section 68

proof. In this case, the assessee not only failed to produce the alleged creditors, but also did not request the AO to issue summons under section 131. The basic loan documentation itself was missing, and the confirmations filed were belated and perfunctory. In such a factual setting, the claim

M/S. Stupendors Traders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5(1)., Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes, having been remanded back to the file of Ld

ITA 326/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Also The Assessee Could Not Succeed & The 2 M/S Stupendors Traders Pvt. Ltd. Following Findings Of Ld. Cit(A) Would Summarize His Stand:

Section 131Section 250Section 68

business of assessee was only investment and during previous year, assessee had received huge share application money along with premium-Assessing "Officer issued summons under section 131 to directors of assessee-company calling upon them to produce proof of identity/PAN card, list of companies where assessee was a director

Adhunik Akshat Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Dumka vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Deoghar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 163/RAN/2025[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.163/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Adhunik Akshat Udyog Pvt. Ltd……………............................……….……Appellant Industrial Area, Babupur, Muffasil Thana Dumka, Jharkhand – 814101. [Pan: Aabca4896Q] Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1), Deoghar…...…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sushil Pransukha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Dated 11.03.2025 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2012–13 Declaring Total Income Of ₹2,57,551. The Case Was Reopened Under Section 147 On The Ground That The Assessee Had Raised Share Capital & Share Premium From Certain Entities, Whose Financial Capacity & Genuineness Of Investment Remained Unexplained. During Assessment, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Introduced Share Capital Of ₹37,50,000 From The Following Four Private Limited Companies:

Section 131Section 147Section 250Section 68

held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions, and non- compliance to summons under section 131 further supported the AO’s conclusion. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing the learned

Golden Goenka Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT Circle-2(1), Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 11/RAN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.11/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Golden Goenka Commerce Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Rajgaj Traders Pvt. Ltd.)............................……….……Appellant 25A, S.P Mukherjee Road, 4Th Floor, Bhawanipore, Kol-25, [Pan: Aabcr7503F] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Jamshedpur..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kumar Pranab, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 4, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Cit(A)”], Dated 21.12.2018, Arising Out Of Assessment Framed Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, The Sum & Substance Of Which Is That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of ₹4,73,00,000 Made By The Assessing Officer (“Ao”) Under Section 68 Of The Act Towards Share Capital & Share Premium, Ignoring The Documentary Evidences Placed On Record & Without Conducting Any Independent Enquiry. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011–12 Declaring Total Income Of ₹16,67,088. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

vide order dated 21.12.2018. 4. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) sustained the addition holding that in absence of compliance to summons under section 131 of the Act and on the basis of the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the investors were not established. 2 I.T.A. No.11/Ran/2024 Golden Goenka Commerce ... failed to make proper enquiry and mechanically rejected the evidences. It was further submitted that non-compliance of summons under section 131 by the directors of the investor companies cannot be a ground to disregard the evidences. The assessee cannot compel third parties to appear. In this respect

Sameer Fateh Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 16(1), Mumbai

ITA 2463/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri K. Goapal & Om KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

assessee. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that there is a large increase in creditors and accordingly issued summons under section 131(1) to some of the major creditors. All the parties except Mrs. Reena Panchal proprietor of M/s Dhruv Communications appeared in response ... disallowed the entire expenditure. 6. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The AO during the course of assessment issued summons under section 131(1) to various parties and has recorded a finding that all parties except Mrs. Reena Panchal have appeared in response to the summons

Sandeep Kumar Sethia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 44(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is

ITA 584/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

submitted that the advance was taken for the sale of property, notices under section 133(6) and summons under section 131 were issued for examination/verification of the parties and no addition was made in the assessment order in respect of the amounts received. It was also submitted that till assessment