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)

DCIT, CC-2(1), Kolkata vs. Amanat Trade Comm Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 1311/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1290, 1307 & 1308/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata.…………………………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Frankdeal Tradcom Pvt. Ltd..………………………...………...……...…..…..Respondent 6D, Shyamkunj, 12C Lord Sinha Road, Kol- 7. [Pan: Aabcf1099A] Ita Nos.1309, 1310 & 1311/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata.…………………………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Amanat Trade Comm Pvt. Ltd..………………………...………...……...…..…..Respondent 6D, Shyamkunj, 12C Lord Sinha Road, Kol- 7. [Pan: Aagca3278H] Appearances By: Shri Raja Sengupta, 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 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: All The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Against Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, 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 All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Search Operation, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

DCIT, CC-2(1), Kolkata vs. Amanat Trade Comm Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 1310/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1290, 1307 & 1308/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata.…………………………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Frankdeal Tradcom Pvt. Ltd..………………………...………...……...…..…..Respondent 6D, Shyamkunj, 12C Lord Sinha Road, Kol- 7. [Pan: Aabcf1099A] Ita Nos.1309, 1310 & 1311/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata.…………………………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Amanat Trade Comm Pvt. Ltd..………………………...………...……...…..…..Respondent 6D, Shyamkunj, 12C Lord Sinha Road, Kol- 7. [Pan: Aagca3278H] Appearances By: Shri Raja Sengupta, 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 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: All The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Against Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, 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 All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Search Operation, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

DCIT, CC -2(1), Kolkata vs. Amanat Trade Comm Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 1309/KOL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1290, 1307 & 1308/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata.…………………………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Frankdeal Tradcom Pvt. Ltd..………………………...………...……...…..…..Respondent 6D, Shyamkunj, 12C Lord Sinha Road, Kol- 7. [Pan: Aabcf1099A] Ita Nos.1309, 1310 & 1311/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata.…………………………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Amanat Trade Comm Pvt. Ltd..………………………...………...……...…..…..Respondent 6D, Shyamkunj, 12C Lord Sinha Road, Kol- 7. [Pan: Aagca3278H] Appearances By: Shri Raja Sengupta, 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 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: All The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Against Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, 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 All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Search Operation, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

DCIT, CC-2(1), Kolkata vs. Frankdeal Tracom Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 1308/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1290, 1307 & 1308/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata.…………………………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Frankdeal Tradcom Pvt. Ltd..………………………...………...……...…..…..Respondent 6D, Shyamkunj, 12C Lord Sinha Road, Kol- 7. [Pan: Aabcf1099A] Ita Nos.1309, 1310 & 1311/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata.…………………………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Amanat Trade Comm Pvt. Ltd..………………………...………...……...…..…..Respondent 6D, Shyamkunj, 12C Lord Sinha Road, Kol- 7. [Pan: Aagca3278H] Appearances By: Shri Raja Sengupta, 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 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: All The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Against Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, 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 All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Search Operation, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

DCIT, CC-2(1), Kolkata vs. Frankdeal Tracom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1307/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1290, 1307 & 1308/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata.…………………………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Frankdeal Tradcom Pvt. Ltd..………………………...………...……...…..…..Respondent 6D, Shyamkunj, 12C Lord Sinha Road, Kol- 7. [Pan: Aabcf1099A] Ita Nos.1309, 1310 & 1311/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata.…………………………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Amanat Trade Comm Pvt. Ltd..………………………...………...……...…..…..Respondent 6D, Shyamkunj, 12C Lord Sinha Road, Kol- 7. [Pan: Aagca3278H] Appearances By: Shri Raja Sengupta, 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 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: All The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Against Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, 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 All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Search Operation, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

DCIT, CC-2(1), Kolkata vs. Frankdeal Tracom Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 1290/KOL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1290, 1307 & 1308/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata.…………………………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Frankdeal Tradcom Pvt. Ltd..………………………...………...……...…..…..Respondent 6D, Shyamkunj, 12C Lord Sinha Road, Kol- 7. [Pan: Aabcf1099A] Ita Nos.1309, 1310 & 1311/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata.…………………………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Amanat Trade Comm Pvt. Ltd..………………………...………...……...…..…..Respondent 6D, Shyamkunj, 12C Lord Sinha Road, Kol- 7. [Pan: Aagca3278H] Appearances By: Shri Raja Sengupta, 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 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: All The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Against Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, 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 All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Search Operation, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C