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

Sujeet Kumar Mishra, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-61(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7784/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2008-09 Sujeet Kumar Mishra, Vs. Ito, 436 (Basement), Jangpura, Ward-61(3), Mathura Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aitpm2677A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sujeet Kumar Mishra, Assessee Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.11.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31St May, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-38, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Ex Parte Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming An Addition Of Rs.10,80,000/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Cash Deposit In The Bank Account Under The Head ‘Undisclosed Sources.’ 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Profession & ‘Income From Other Sources.’ During The Course Of Original Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Noticed That The Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Rs.10,80,000/- In His Savings Bank Account Maintained With Axis Bank. The Ao Called For The Source Of The Same Which The Assessee Could Not File & Sought Adjournment & Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 144 By Making An Addition Of Rs.10.80 Lac. The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition Again Due To Non-Appearance & The Matter Reached Before Itat. The Case Was Set Aside By The Itat By Its Order No.5872/Del/2013 Dated 18Th May, 2016 & Remitted The Matter To The File Of Ao For Deciding The Issue Afresh, As Per Law, After Allowing A Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. The Itat Set Aside The Case On The Plea Of The Assessee That The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 144 Of The Act, Without Granting Adequate Opportunity To The Assessee To Present His Case & Same Position Prevailed In So Far As The Appellate Proceedings Are Concerned.

For Appellant: Shri Sujeet Kumar Mishra, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

M/S Atlanta Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ircle-9 (1)(2), Mumbai

Appeals stands partly allowed whereas the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 7424/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7424/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7425/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Atlanta Limited Dcit Circle – 9(1)(2), बिाम/ 301, Shree Ambashanti Chambers Aaykar Bhavan, Opp. Hotel Leela, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-8865-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7630/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7631/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7632/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit Circle – 9(1)(2), M/S Atlanta Limited R. No. 210, 2Nd Floor बिाम/ 301, Shree Ambashanti Chambers Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Opp. Hotel Leela, Andheri (East), Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-8865-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Brajendra Kumar– Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 26/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar– Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Blooming Diagnostics & Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 5(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4531/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Blooming Diagnostics & Impex Vs Ito, Pvt. Ltd., Ward-5(1), C/O R.K. Tuli & Associates, Ca, New Delhi. 11/37, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. Pan : Aaccb9882G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Baldev Raj, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.10.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 10Th March, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-2, New Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Ex Parte Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Various Additions Made By The Ao & Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,24,13,520/- Against The Returned Income Of The Assessee Of Rs.5,95,800/-. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Drugs, Medicines & Pathological Items. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 6Th July, 2013 Declaring The Total Income Of Rs.5,95,810/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Dated 02.09.2014 Was Issued & Served Upon The Assessee Through Speed Post. A Questionnaire Dated 22Nd October, 2014 U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued & Served Upon The Assessee For Compliance.

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 40Section 68