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

Pawan Chandak, Madhya Pradesh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 272/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pawan Chandak Dcit,Central Circle 2(4), 8Th 205, Royal Park, 19/3, New Vs. Floor,Cgo Complex,Pratishtha Palasia, Indore, Madhya Bhavan, Marine Lines, M.K. Rd. Pradesh Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Achpc8310N Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, Dr Assessee By : Mr . Devendra Jain, Ar Date Of Hearing :01/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2019 Order Per N.K. Pradhan, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-14. The Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [In Short ‘Cit (A)’] & Arises Out Of The Penalty Levied U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (The ‘Act’). 2. The Ground Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Sustaining Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.10,36,200/- U/S 271Aab Of The Act. 3. Briefly Stated, The Facts Are That A Search & Seizure Action U/S 132 Was Carried Out By The Revenue In The Case Of M/S. Gold Sukh Safety Vaults Ltd. On 08.11.2012 & The Assessee, Who Is Proprietor Of M/S. Mangalam Courier, Was Also Covered. During The Course Of Search On 08.11.2012, Cash

For Appellant: Mr . Devendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

M/S. Ascent Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 14(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 2277/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 2277/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Ascent Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd......………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant 325, G.T. Road Belur Howrah – 711 201 [Pan : Aajca 1501 E] Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(4), Kolkata……………………………..…….........…..…......Respondent Appearances By: None, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 1St, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 26Th , 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5, Kolkata, (Ld. Cit(A)) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 29/05/2017, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Issue Of Notice By Rpad. The Application Moved By The Assessee For Adjournment Is Rejected As Devoid Of Merit. Under The Circumstances We Dispose Of The Case Ex-Parte On Merits Qua The Assessee After Hearing The Ld. Departmental Representative. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & During The Previous Year It Has Raised Share Capital Amounting To Rs. 1,33,00,000/-, Including Share Premium. The Assessing Officer Added This Amount U/S 68 Of The Act. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. The Ld. First Appellate Authority Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer & Confirmed The Addition. Aggrieved The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us. 4. Heard The Ld. D/R. On Careful Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Perusal Of The Papers On Record, Orders Of The Authorities Below As Well As Case Law Cited, We Hold As Follows:-

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 250Section 68