Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: ss.247, 249, 251

Section 132(1) falls under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 247 (Search and seizure), section 249 (Reasons not to be disclosed) and section 251 (Copying, extraction, retention and release of books of account and documents seized or requisitioned) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 247 of the 2025 ActRead section 249 of the 2025 ActRead section 251 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 132(1) is ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT (374 ITR 108), cited in 364 of the 846 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 132(1)

ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT
374 ITR 108 · 2015 · High Court
364
citing judgments

When computing disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act using Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, only investments that have actually yielded exempt income during the relevant previous year are to be considered for the calculation.

TM) Vishnu Jaiswal v. CIT
357 ITR 146 · 2013 · High Court
272
citing judgments

If the Assessing Officer has not conducted any investigation and thus has not discharged their burden of proof, any addition made by the AO is unsustainable and must be deleted.

CIT v. Ashwani Gupta
322 ITR 396 · 2010 · High Court
262
citing judgments

Proceedings become fatal if principles of natural justice are violated, such as when seized material is not provided to the assessee or cross-examination of a person whose statement the Assessing Officer relies upon is denied.

Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. ACIT
370 ITR 295 · 2015 · High Court
249
citing judgments

Section 153C of the Income-tax Act is invoked only when it is established that seized documents do not belong to the searched person, or if the searched person disclaims them; the satisfaction note must specifically indicate this fact.

CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd.
330 ITR 298 · 2011 · High Court
218
citing judgments

An assessee cannot be asked to explain the source of the source for cash credits, particularly share capital or share application money, once they have discharged the initial onus regarding the identity, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the immediate investor.

CIT v. Torrent Power Ltd.
354 ITR 630 · 2013 · High Court
166
citing judgments

If an assessee possesses sufficient interest-free own funds to cover investments yielding exempt income, it is presumed that such investments are made from these own funds, precluding any disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A, even when borrowed funds are also available.

CIT v. Chetan Dass Lachman Dass
25 Taxmann.com 227 · 2012 · High Court
109
citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A of the Income-tax Act is not solely restricted to the evidence found during the search; the Assessing Officer can also consider other post-search material or information available that relates to the search evidence.

Gopal Lal Bhadruka v. DCIT
346 ITR 106 · 2012 · High Court
106
citing judgments

The scope of assessment under Section 153A is not limited solely to seized material but includes any other information provided by the assessee in the return of income filed in response to a Section 153A notice. It also applies principles for estimating undisclosed income, such as from on-money receipts, even if there is material for only some transactions.

Pr. CIT v. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd.
124 Taxmann.com 249 · 2021 · Supreme Court
105
citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable if the notice issued under Section 274 fails to specifically mention whether the charge relates to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer must specify the exact charge for the penalty to be valid.

Gurinder Singh Bawa v. DCIT
28 Taxmann.com 328 · 2012 · ITAT
99
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 132(1)

Kuruganti Srivalli, Hyderabad vs. ACIT Central Circle, Dhanbad

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

ITA 84/RAN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.84/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Kuruganti Srivalli….. …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant S3 & S4 Vasudha Enclave, Vinayak Nagar, Neredmet, Hyderabad, Telengana-500056. [Pan: Asipk8246J] Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Dhanbad....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ci(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 23.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted On The Premises Of The Atibir Group Of Cases. Simultaneously, Survey Proceedings Under Section 133A Of The Act Were Also Carried Out At Certain Business Premises Of The Group. In The Case Of The Assessee, Proceedings Were Initiated On 17.03.2021. The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of ₹10,85,410. Thereafter, Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Duly Issued & Served. In Response, The Assessee Appeared & Filed Submissions During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. During The Search, The Locker Maintained With Axis Bank Was Opened & Statements Of The Husband

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 250

Sharad Sarawgi, Giridih vs. ACIT, C. C., Dhanbad

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

ITA 424/RAN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.424/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Sharad Sarawgi….... …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant Sarawgi Sadan, Dumri Road, Giridih, Jharkhand- 815301. [Pan: Acspj2613G] Vs. Acit, C.C-Dhanbad………….....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ci(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 12.09.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Part Of The Saraogi Group. A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted On The Group On Various Dates, Along With A Survey Under Section 133A Of The Act At Certain Business Premises Of The Group. During The Course Of Search, Cash Aggregating To ₹2,15,50,000 Was Found From The Bedroom Of Shri Santosh Kumar Saraogi. In The Statement Recorded Under Section 132(4), It Was Stated That Cash Of ₹21,20,000 Belonged To The Present Assessee, While The Balance Amount Belonged To Other Concerns. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) For Ay 2021–22 Declaring Total Income Of ₹4,66,180. Subsequently, Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Were

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. Bentec India Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1776/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle -1(1), Kolkata.…..………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Bentec India Ltd………………. ………..…………...……………………..…..Respondent Phase-Ii, Kasba Industrial Estates, Plot No.11, Kol-700107.. [Pan: Aabcb0647G] Appearances By: Pradeep Dung Dung, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Manish Tiwari, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.11.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 186 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 132(1)Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 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