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

M/S. Chatrachaya Property Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1795/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1795/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Chatrachaya Property Holdings Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Studio N - Sy No. 70, Income Tax/Dc, Narne Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Central Circle 1(2), Manikonda, Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan:Aafcc4753J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Vinita Shah, Ca (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Besides Challenging The Issue On Merits In Restricting The Addition By The Ld. Cit(A), The Assessee Has Challenged In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah, CA (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132ASection 153ASection 68

Smita Jatia, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -7(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 4441/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Amit Jatia The Asst. Cit, Central Circle 7(1) 1001, Tower-3, 10Th Floor, Mumbai One International Center, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Prabhadevi, Delisle Road S.O., Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaepj 8462 D (Appellant) : (Respondent) & Smt. Smita Jatia The Asst. Cit, Central Circle 7(1) 1001, Tower-3, 10Th Floor, Mumbai One International Center, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Prabhadevi, Delisle Road S.O., Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Addpj 8102 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Shash Bekal Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: Captioned Are Appeals Relating To Two Different Assessee’S, Arising Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai. While Ita No. 4440/Mum/2025 Relates To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15, Ita No.4441/Mum/2025 Relates To A.Y. 2017-18. (Ays. 2014-15 & 2017-18) Shri Amit Jatia & Smt. Smita Jatia 2. Since, Appellants Are Closely Related, Being Husband & Wife & Issues Arising For Consideration Are More Or Less Identical, They Have Been Clubbed Together & Disposed Of In A Common Order, For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Amit Jatia, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 4440/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Amit Jatia The Asst. Cit, Central Circle 7(1) 1001, Tower-3, 10Th Floor, Mumbai One International Center, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Prabhadevi, Delisle Road S.O., Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaepj 8462 D (Appellant) : (Respondent) & Smt. Smita Jatia The Asst. Cit, Central Circle 7(1) 1001, Tower-3, 10Th Floor, Mumbai One International Center, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Prabhadevi, Delisle Road S.O., Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Addpj 8102 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Shash Bekal Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: Captioned Are Appeals Relating To Two Different Assessee’S, Arising Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai. While Ita No. 4440/Mum/2025 Relates To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15, Ita No.4441/Mum/2025 Relates To A.Y. 2017-18. (Ays. 2014-15 & 2017-18) Shri Amit Jatia & Smt. Smita Jatia 2. Since, Appellants Are Closely Related, Being Husband & Wife & Issues Arising For Consideration Are More Or Less Identical, They Have Been Clubbed Together & Disposed Of In A Common Order, For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Raja Shelters Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1967/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata..……………… …………….……….……Appellant Vs. Raja Shelters Pvt. Ltd…………...………………………….......……...…..…..Respondent 25A, S P Mukherjee Road, Kol-700025. [Pan: Aadcr5073Q] Appearances By: Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 02, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.04.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 27 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68