Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act

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

Section 132(4) 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(4) is Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (149 Taxmann.com 399), cited in 2,379 of the 3,819 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 132(4)

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court
2,379
citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE
281 CTR 241 · 2015 · Supreme Court
1,335
citing judgments

An assessee must be given an opportunity to cross-examine third parties whose statements are relied upon for adverse findings. Failure to provide this opportunity is a serious flaw rendering the order a nullity.

Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia
395 ITR 526 · 2017 · High Court
1,226
citing judgments

In search assessments under Section 153A, additions to income are permissible only if incriminating material is found during the search; in the absence of such material, completed assessments cannot be disturbed. A statement recorded under Section 132(4) and later retracted may not, on its own, constitute sufficient incriminating evidence for making additions.

Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT
26 ITR 775 · 1954 · Supreme Court
1,061
citing judgments

Corroborative evidence is essential to support evidence found on third-party premises, and an assessment cannot be based on suspicion, surmises, or conjecture.

Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT
125 ITR 713 · 1980 · Supreme Court
962
citing judgments

An assessee is entitled to be confronted with evidence used against them and to an opportunity for cross-examination, especially when that evidence is from a third party or a retracted statement. Failure to provide such an opportunity violates the principles of natural justice.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court
953
citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

PCIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd.
397 ITR 82 · 2017 · High Court
786
citing judgments

A statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not by itself constitute incriminating material for making additions to income.

McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO
154 ITR 148 · 1985 · Supreme Court
741
citing judgments

The Supreme Court held that while legitimate tax planning is permissible, transactions structured as a "colourable device" or "subterfuge" solely to avoid tax are impermissible. It mandates a judicial shift to look beyond the form to the substance of a transaction, allowing the lifting of the corporate veil in tax evasion arrangements.

Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
91 ITR 18 · 1973 · Supreme Court
666
citing judgments

Admissions, whether made through entries in account books or statements, are important pieces of evidence but are not conclusive. An assessee has the right to demonstrate that an admission made by them is incorrect or can be retracted.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal
290 CTR 263 · 2016 · High Court
583
citing judgments

Assessment based solely on a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act requires the statement to be relatable to incriminating material or evidence found during the search, especially when considering Section 158BB(1) which restricts computation of undisclosed income to evidence found during search.

Judgments on Section 132(4)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Guwahati vs. Sh. Daulal Sarda, Guwahati

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 196/GTY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati07 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleita Nos. 195 To 199/Gty/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2017-18 Acit, Circle-2, Guwahati Sh. Daulal Sarda 2Nd Floor, Uco Bank Building, Vs. H.B. Road, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati-781 001. Pan: Aikps 1167 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri S.P. Bhati, Fca Respondent By : Shri Chandan Dutta, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 02.11.2020 For Different Assessment Years. Since The Facts & Issues Are Identical & Similar In Nature. Therefore, The Assessment Year 2015-16 Taken As Lead Case & Result Will Be Followed For The Other Assessment Years. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) By Stating That When The Assessee Has Accepted / Admitted In Quantity Of Betel Nuts. The Assessee Has Disputed The Rate Of Betel Nuts. However, The Ld. Cit(A) While Passing The Impugned Order Simply Deleted The Addition By Taking A Plea That No Incriminating Document Has Been Found During The Course Of Search.

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Bhati, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Dutta, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(1)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Guwahati vs. Sh. Daulal Sarda, Guwahati

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 195/GTY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati07 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleita Nos. 195 To 199/Gty/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2017-18 Acit, Circle-2, Guwahati Sh. Daulal Sarda 2Nd Floor, Uco Bank Building, Vs. H.B. Road, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati-781 001. Pan: Aikps 1167 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri S.P. Bhati, Fca Respondent By : Shri Chandan Dutta, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 02.11.2020 For Different Assessment Years. Since The Facts & Issues Are Identical & Similar In Nature. Therefore, The Assessment Year 2015-16 Taken As Lead Case & Result Will Be Followed For The Other Assessment Years. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) By Stating That When The Assessee Has Accepted / Admitted In Quantity Of Betel Nuts. The Assessee Has Disputed The Rate Of Betel Nuts. However, The Ld. Cit(A) While Passing The Impugned Order Simply Deleted The Addition By Taking A Plea That No Incriminating Document Has Been Found During The Course Of Search.

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Bhati, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Dutta, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(1)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur vs. Polisetty Somasundaram Pvt Ltd, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection raised by the assessee is disposed off as mentioned herein above

ITA 248/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.248/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Polisetty Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Somasundaram Pvt Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, D.No. 3-30-17, Sundaram Lakshmipuram Main Road, Colony, Ring Road, Guntur-522 007, Gujjanagundla, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh-522006. Pan: Aabcp 3168 Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 03/Viz/2023 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.248/Viz/2022) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram Pvt Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle-1, D.No. 3-30-17, Sundaram Colony, 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, Ring Road, Gujjanagundla, Lakshmipuram Main Road, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh-522006. Guntur-522 007, Pan: Aabcp 3168 Q Andhra Pradesh. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr Satya Sai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr Satya Sai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A