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

Akshoy Creation, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Range-43, Kolkata

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

ITA 2006/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2006/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Akshoy Creation, 15B, Vs. Adcit, Range-43, Armenian Street, Trpl 3, Government Place (West) Tower, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakfa 4313 J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.Dattaru, Fca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Arindam Bhatacharya सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxx, Kolkata, In Appeal No.303/Cit(A)-Xxx/R-43/2011-12, Dated 18.08.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 27.12.2011. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Is A Whole Sale Dealer & Manufacturers Of Fancy Handloom & Silk Sarees. The Assessee Filed Its Return On 19.6.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,67,500/-, Which Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Completed The Assessee After Making Various Additions.

For Appellant: Shri K.Dattaru, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhatacharya
Section 131Section 142Section 143

Supreme Real Estate Developers P/ Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 23, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3097/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./3097/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Supreme Real Estate Developers Acit-Central Circle-23 Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Mk Road 215, Atrium, 10Th Floor, Near Marriot, New Marine Lines Vs. Courtyard Hotel,Andheri-Kurla Rd. Mumbai-400 020. Andheri-(E),Mumbai-400 093. Pan:Aaacs 5871 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3185/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit-Central Circle-23 M/S. Supreme Real Estate Developers Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Private Limited Mumbai-400 093. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Anand Mohan-Cit--Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/03/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 31.03.2017 लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार /Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 28/02/2014, Of The Cit(A)-40,Mumbai The Assessing Officer (Ao) & The Assessee Have Filed Cross Appeals For The Above Assessment Year.Assessee-Company,Is A Real Estate Developer.The Ao Completed The Assessment,On 28/03/2013,U/S.143 (3) Of The Act, Determining Its Income At Rs. 43.30 Lakhs.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan-CIT--DR
Section 131Section 132Section 143