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

ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Tara Re-Rolling Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 49/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judical Member & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.49/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata............................................................................Appellant Vs. M/S Tara Re-Rolling Pvt. Ltd..................................................................Respondent 1/1A, Vansittart Row, Dalhousie, 1St Floor, Room No.6A, Kolkata-1. [Pan:Aabct3982C] Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 22, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 02.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Revenue In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Cit(A) In Deleting The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer In Respect Of Receipt Of Rs.4,53,50,000/- By The Assessee Company Which Was Treated By The Assessing Officer As Unexplained Income Of The Assessee U/S 68 Of The Act On The Ground That The Assessee Had Failed To Establish The Identity, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Share Subscribers.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

Gopal Krishna S Revankar, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 19(2) (Now Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 22(3)), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1164/MUM/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1164/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2002-03) Gopal Krishna S. Revankar बिधम/ Acit, Circle-19(2) (Now Lotus House, Off Andheri- Acit-22(3) Vs. Kurla Road, Sakinaka, Piramal Chambers, Andheri (E), Mumbai- Lalbaugh, Mumbai. 400072. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapr4742C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mitesh Mehta Revenue By: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai Dated 21.12.2017 For Assessment Year 2002-03. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: - “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Not Realizing The Fact That The Appellant Has Already Added Rs. 10,43,700/- To Its Total Income After Considering Rs.7,65,000/- From Meenakshi Bhavan & Other Receipts In The Rough Cash Book & Loose Papers Found During The Survey Action On The Assessee On 28.2.2002. 2. The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Making Addition Of Rs. 7,70,536/- On Account Of Unexplained Cash Found During The Survey. This Amounts To Taxing The Same Amount Twice. 3. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Making Addition Of Rs. 7,65,000/- On Account Of Unaccounted Receipts From Meenakshi Bhavan Resulting Into Taxing The Same Income Three Times.

For Appellant: Shri Mitesh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan (Sr. AR)
Section 133A