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-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Kolar Paper Mills Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1978/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.1978/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) Dy. Commissioner Of V/S. M/S. Kolar Paper Mills Income Tax, Circle बिाम Ltd. 2(1)(1), Mumbai A 404, Twin Tower Chs Ltd, Room No. 575, 5Th Floor, Lokhandwala, 2Nd Cross Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Near, Apna Ghar Andheri Road, Mumbai 400020 West, Mumbai 400053 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Aadck8381N Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Ashok Majetia, Ca Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: 26.08.2025 स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 23.12.2024 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Majetia, CAFor Respondent: 26.08.2025
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 69ASection 69CSection 80G

JCIT(in Situ) CC22 Kolkata, Kolkata vs. Global Casting Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITSSA 41/KOL/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmait(Ss)A No.41/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year : 2012-2013) Jcit (In Situ), Cc-2(2), Kolkata Vs Global Casting Private Limited Swastick Building, 1, Sardar Sankar Road, Kolkata-700026 Pan No.Aaccg 9845 L (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.L.Poddar, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manjunatha G, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-26, Dated 16.12.2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. At The Outset, We Find That The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Delayed By 27 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Delay. Looking To The Facts & Circumstances Of Case & Considering The Sufficient Reasons Stated By The Revenue In Its Affidavit, We Condone The Delay Of 27 Days In Filing The Present Appeal & The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made U/S. 68 Of The Act On Account Of Bogus Share Capital/Premium Amounting To Rs.3,14,99,865/-

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Poddar, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68