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

Aiswarya Art Creations Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax-Range -13, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1535/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarm/S. Aiswarya Art Vs. Income Tax Officer, Creations Pvt. Ltd., Ward 15(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan Aagca7479J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Kumar Aditya, (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 20.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.10.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda, A.M. : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dt.04.05.2018 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Guntur Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Trading In Satellite Rights. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 2 26.12.2011 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.17,47,243. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. Accordingly, Statutory Notices U/S. 143(2) & 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) Were Issued. However, There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The Assessee For Which Summon U/S. 131 Of The Act Was Issued & The Statement Of The Assessee Was Recorded On 29.01.2014 Wherein He Agreed To Furnish The Required Information By 30.01.2014. Since There Was No Compliance Despite Number Of Opportunities, The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Complete The Assessment U/S.144 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

Mahacol Tie Up (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(4), Kolkata

ITA 2269/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.2269/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mahacol Tie Up (P) Ltd.........................................................................……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. [Pan: Aabcm7356H] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata......….…..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 27, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 12, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.08.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Kolkata [Hereinafter As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,15,00,000/- Made By The A.O Being Fresh Raising Of Share Capital Including Share Premium By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Section 68 Of The Act. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.72,224/- U/S 14A R.W. Rule 8D. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Further Grounds Of Appeal Or Alter The Grounds At The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68