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 WD 2, Palghar vs. Irani Abresives, Palghar

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4169/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4169/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ito M/S. Irani Abresives बनाम/ Ward-2, Palghar, At & Post – Gholvad, Aayakar Bhavan, Ito, Bidco Road, Near Railway Station, Vs. Palghar, Tal. & Dist. Palghar-401 404 Tal. – Dahanu, Dist. - Palghar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabfi 4014 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. N. Hemalatha ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 10.10.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 05.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Thane Dated 22.03.2015 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)- 3, Thane Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 31,29,495/- On Account Of Commission Claimed By The Assessee, Without Appreciating The Facts That The 2 Ito Vs. M/S. Irani Abresives Assessee Could Not Substantiate Its Claim Of Services From M/S. Utkarsh Enterprises For Which It Has Paid Commission To M/S. Utkarsh Enterprises. _ .. The Appellant Prays That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Thane, Should Be Set- Aside & That Of The Assessing Officer Should Be Restored.

For Appellant: Ms. N. HemalathaFor Respondent: None
Section 131Section 143(3)

M/S Shree Bishandas Iron Works, Kolkata vs. The DCIT Cir-36, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1232/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2008-09 M/S Shree Bishandas Iron Dcit, Circle- बनाम Works, 4 India Exchange 36,Kolkata / V/S. Place, 2Nd Floor, Kolkta-001 [Pan No.Aanfs0164 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Saurbh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 02-11-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26-12-2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xix, Kolkata Dated 09.04.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-36, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 31.12.2010 For Assessment Year 2008-09. Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Ld. Authorized Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri Surbh Kumar, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. Sole Issue Raised By Assessee In This Appeal Is That Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of Ao By Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs. 1,17,47,513 On Account Of Commission Expenses Claimed By The Assessee. 3. Briefly Stated Facts Are That The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Partnership Firm & Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Iron & Steel Materials.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)