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)

Genesis Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITSSA 84/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyit(Ss).A Nos.83 & 84/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Genesis Advertising Pvt. Ltd …………..…………………………….…….……Appellant 2A, Dwarka, 7 Sarat Bose Road, Kol- 700020. [Pan: Aabcg0780D] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata …………..………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Jyoti Duggar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P N Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2019-20 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Dated 23.07.2025 & 25.07.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.83/Kol/25 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Sake Of Convenience & Narrations Of Facts.

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 40A(3)

Genesis Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITSSA 83/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyit(Ss).A Nos.83 & 84/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Genesis Advertising Pvt. Ltd …………..…………………………….…….……Appellant 2A, Dwarka, 7 Sarat Bose Road, Kol- 700020. [Pan: Aabcg0780D] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata …………..………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Jyoti Duggar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P N Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2019-20 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Dated 23.07.2025 & 25.07.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.83/Kol/25 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Sake Of Convenience & Narrations Of Facts.

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 40A(3)

Santosh Kumar Sinha, Purnia vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 269/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraita Nos.268 & 269/Pat/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Santosh Kumar Sinha…….………………. ……………..…..........……….Appellant S/O Late Satya Narayan Lal, Carriers Colony, Sakti Nagar, Purnia, Bihar – 854301. [Pan: Awhps7019N] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna…………..……. ……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri K. P. Jalan, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 09, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 31.03.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.268/Pat/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts.

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

Santosh Kumar Sinha, Purnia vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 268/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraita Nos.268 & 269/Pat/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Santosh Kumar Sinha…….………………. ……………..…..........……….Appellant S/O Late Satya Narayan Lal, Carriers Colony, Sakti Nagar, Purnia, Bihar – 854301. [Pan: Awhps7019N] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna…………..……. ……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri K. P. Jalan, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 09, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 31.03.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.268/Pat/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts.

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250