Section 131 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.246

Section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 246 (Power regarding discovery, production of evidence, etc) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 246 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 131 is CIT v. Simit P. Sheth (356 ITR 451), cited in 1,465 of the 4,706 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 131

CIT v. Simit P. Sheth
356 ITR 451 · 2013 · High Court
1,465
citing judgments

Additions for alleged bogus purchases should be restricted to the profit element, not the entire turnover. The profit element is often estimated at 12.5% of the purported bogus purchases.

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.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO
236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court
862
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.
216 CTR 195 · 2008 · Supreme Court
854
citing judgments

If an assessee company receives share application money from alleged bogus shareholders and provides their details to the Assessing Officer, no addition can be made under Section 68 in the company's hands; the Department must proceed against the shareholders by reopening their individual assessments.

(Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.
103 Taxmann.com 48 · 2019 · Supreme Court
696
citing judgments

When assessing cash credits, share capital, or loans, the assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. This burden is not discharged merely by documentary evidence if field inquiries reveal accommodation entries or dealings with paper/shell companies.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.
342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court
658
citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son
352 ITR 480 · 2013 · Supreme Court
581
citing judgments

Statements recorded during a survey under Section 133A do not have evidentiary value as Section 133A does not empower examination on oath. Consequently, additions to income cannot be made solely based on such uncorroborated statements without other credible evidence.

DCIT v. Rohini Builders
256 ITR 360 · 2002 · High Court
489
citing judgments

An assessee discharges the initial onus under Section 68 for cash credits by providing creditor details like PAN and addresses, proving creditworthiness via banking transactions, and demonstrating genuineness, especially when loans are repaid through cheques.

Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT
316 ITR 274 · 2009 · High Court
460
citing judgments

In cases of alleged bogus or unverifiable purchases, rather than disallowing the entire purchase value, a reasonable profit element or a proportionate percentage of the purchases should be added back to the assessee's income.

CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son
300 ITR 157 · 2008 · High Court
452
citing judgments

A statement recorded under duress during a survey, if subsequently retracted, has no evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for an income-tax assessment; the assessment should instead rely on audited accounts.

Judgments on Section 131

Vikas Ashokkumar Masand, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3130/AHD/2026[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2026

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Shri Tapas Ram Misravikas Ashokkumar Masand, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Indian Oil Petrol Pump, Income Tax, Nr. Manav Mandir, Circle 3(1)(1), Drive-In Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380052. [Pan : Acbpa3190 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Ms Ridhi Masani, Ca On Behalf Of Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar Respondent Represented By: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.10.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.10.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.07.2026 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 16.07.2026 Is Bad In Law, Contrary To The Facts On Record, Contrary To The Settled Judicial Precedents & Is Passed Without Properly Appreciating The Evidence & Submissions Placed Before Him & Therefore Requires To Be Set Aside. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 34,40,123/-Made By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 69A Of The Act, When The Very

Section 115BSection 131Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68Section 69A