Section 131(1) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.246

Section 131(1) falls under section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which 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(1) is 282(Del) 3. Pee Aar Securities Ltd. v. DCIT (97 Taxmann.com 398), cited in 40 of the 149 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 131(1)

282(Del) 3. Pee Aar Securities Ltd. v. DCIT
97 Taxmann.com 398 · 2018 · Supreme Court
40
citing judgments

The genuineness of transactions, particularly the creditworthiness of creditors for share capital, is a key factor in the addition under section 68. The assessee must provide sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of such transactions.

CIT v. N. Swamy
241 ITR 363 · 2000 · High Court
38
citing judgments

The revenue bears the burden of proving that an assessee has undisclosed income. A mere assertion by the assessee, especially without evidence or linkage to seized documents, cannot be accepted.

Pavankumar M. Sanghvi v. ITO, Wd. 3(1)(2), Baroda
81 Taxmann.com 308 · 2017 · ITAT
23
citing judgments

Unexplained cash credits, accommodation entries, and share application monies from shell companies can be added to income under Section 68 if the assessee fails to prove the genuineness and bonafides of the transactions. The genuineness of a transaction is a matter of perception based on facts and ground realities.

Banerjee v. CIT, (1963) 49 ITR (SC) 112, 120, 121, D. YasodammaGudur v. CIT
84 ITR 307 · 1972 · High Court
20
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer's addition under section 68 is deleted if the Commissioner (Appeals) has thoroughly examined the facts and material on record and judicial pronouncements.

Lal Mohan Krishna Lal Paul v. CIT
12 ITR 441 · 1944 · High Court
15
citing judgments

The assessing officer cannot arbitrarily reject the explanation and documents furnished by the assessee regarding the identity and creditworthiness of creditors without sufficient material. The onus lies on the revenue to prove that the transaction was not genuine.

Aravali Infrapower Ltd. v. DCIT
390 ITR 456 · 2017 · High Court
14
citing judgments

Reopening of assessment is valid when based on tangible material, such as information from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation) or evidence of accommodation entries, especially where the assessee fails to provide satisfactory details regarding share applicants with meagre income investing large sums.

Pavankumar M Sanghvi v. ITO
258 Taxmann 160 · 2018 · Supreme Court
11
citing judgments
CIT v. Odeon Builder Pvt. Ltd.
17 SCC 311 · 2020 · Reported
9
citing judgments
Contel Medicare Systems P. Ltd. v. CIT
349 ITR 649 · 2012 · High Court
5
citing judgments
M Aboobacker v. CIT
81 Taxmann.com 299 · Reported
5
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 131(1)

Atul Kumar Agrawal, Manpur Road, Kashipur vs. National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 19/DDN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Mr. Atul Kumar Agarwal Vs National Prop.M/S. R.K. Industries, E-Assessment Centre, Manpur Road, Kashipur, New Delhi U.S. Nagar, Uttarakhand- 244713 Pan-Aaopa9970H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Deepak Joshi,Adv. & Shri Rudra Pratab, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.12.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10235798 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 15.03.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 15.08.2018, Declaring Total Income At Inr 5,81,560/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Re-Opened U/S 147 Of The Act. Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 30.03.2022, In Response To Which The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 03.05.2022, Declaring Same Income As Was Declared In The Return Filed U/S 139(1) Of The Act. Thereafter Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued Followed By Notices U/S 142(1) Alongwith Questionnaires. In Response Filed Replies From Time To Time. After Considering The Submissions Made By The Assessee, Ao Completed The Assessment Vide Order Dated 15.03.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Wherein The Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 54,23,320/-.

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

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