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

Radhe Renewable Energy Development Pvt Ltd, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 610/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 609 & 610/Rjt/2026 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14 & 2016-17) Radhe Renewable Energy The Assistant Commissioner Of Development Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, Vs. Plot No.G-557, Gate No.3, Circle-1(1), Rajkot Lodhika Gidc, Kalavad Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Metoda, Rajkot,Gujarat-360021 Ring Road, Rajkot, Gujarat 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccr7723E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/07/2026 17/09/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2016-17, Are Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nac) Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)’], Dated 12.02.2026, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act, Dated 12.02.2026 & 20.02.2023, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 250

Radhe Renewable Energy Development Pvt Ltd, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 609/RJT/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 609 & 610/Rjt/2026 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14 & 2016-17) Radhe Renewable Energy The Assistant Commissioner Of Development Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, Vs. Plot No.G-557, Gate No.3, Circle-1(1), Rajkot Lodhika Gidc, Kalavad Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Metoda, Rajkot,Gujarat-360021 Ring Road, Rajkot, Gujarat 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccr7723E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/07/2026 17/09/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2016-17, Are Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nac) Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)’], Dated 12.02.2026, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act, Dated 12.02.2026 & 20.02.2023, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 250

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Prateek Chitkara, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4139/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Prateek Chitkara, Central Circle-8, Room No.145, E-2, . 348-L, Model Town, Yamuna Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extension, Nagar 135001, Haryana. New Delhi, Delhi 110055. Pan No. Arvpc8053H Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Prateek Chitkara, Central Circle-8, Room No.145, E-2, . 348-L, Model Town, Yamuna Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extension, Nagar 135001, Haryana. New Delhi, Delhi 110055. Pan No. Arvpc8053H Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Kranti, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.09.2026 Pronouncement On 15.09.2026 O R D E R Per Sanjay Awasthi: 1. This Is A Batch Of Two Appeals Pertaining To The Same Assessee & Since The Facts Are Similar In Both The Cases, We Deem It Fit To Pass A Common Order. It May Be Mentioned That On The Last Date Of Hearing, None Attended On Behalf Of The Assessee But It Was Decided To Continue With The Hearing With The Help Of Ld. Dr, More So Because It Was Revenue’S Appeal. 2. Ita No.4138 Arises From Order Dated 28.03.2025, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter As “The Act”), By Ld. Cit(A)-31, Delhi. Ita 4139 Arises From Order Dated 28.03.2025, Passed U/S 250 Of The Act, By Ld. Cit(A)-31, Delhi.

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 250

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8, Delhi vs. Prateek Chitkara, Harayana

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4138/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Prateek Chitkara, Central Circle-8, Room No.145, E-2, . 348-L, Model Town, Yamuna Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extension, Nagar 135001, Haryana. New Delhi, Delhi 110055. Pan No. Arvpc8053H Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Prateek Chitkara, Central Circle-8, Room No.145, E-2, . 348-L, Model Town, Yamuna Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extension, Nagar 135001, Haryana. New Delhi, Delhi 110055. Pan No. Arvpc8053H Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Kranti, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.09.2026 Pronouncement On 15.09.2026 O R D E R Per Sanjay Awasthi: 1. This Is A Batch Of Two Appeals Pertaining To The Same Assessee & Since The Facts Are Similar In Both The Cases, We Deem It Fit To Pass A Common Order. It May Be Mentioned That On The Last Date Of Hearing, None Attended On Behalf Of The Assessee But It Was Decided To Continue With The Hearing With The Help Of Ld. Dr, More So Because It Was Revenue’S Appeal. 2. Ita No.4138 Arises From Order Dated 28.03.2025, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter As “The Act”), By Ld. Cit(A)-31, Delhi. Ita 4139 Arises From Order Dated 28.03.2025, Passed U/S 250 Of The Act, By Ld. Cit(A)-31, Delhi.

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 250