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

Punit Goel, Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is held to be partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 500/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Aug 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Punit Goel, Vs. Acit-2, C-35, E-Park, Mahanagar Lucknow-New Extension, Lucknow Pan: Aeppg2547F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, C.A. Revenue By: Smt. Pratibha Singh, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 2.07.2025 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee That Were Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) For The Assessment Year 2016-17 On 25.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1 That The Learned Lower Court Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case By Not Allowing The Appeal. 2. That The Learned Lower Court Erred In Law By Not Providing The Reasonable 2 Opportunity Of Being Heard Through Video Conferencing Even After Requesting For The Same. 3. That The Learned Lower Court Erred In Facts & Legal Aspects Of The Case In Making Addition Of Rs. 13,35,356/-Being Difference Of Income As Per 26As & Books. 4. That The Learned Lower Court Erred In Making Addition Of Rs 13,35,356/- On Account Of Alleged Difference With 26As Without Bringing On Record Any Evidence That The Difference Was Income Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Pratibha Singh, Addl CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 68