Section 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act

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

Section 132(4A) 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(4A) is Society v. UOI (394 ITR 220), cited in 493 of the 580 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 132(4A)

Society v. UOI
394 ITR 220 · 2017 · Supreme Court
493
citing judgments

Uncorroborated loose papers or documents found during a search operation have no evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining undisclosed income. Additions based on such material require independent evidence to establish trustworthiness and a direct link to the assessee.

CBI v. V.C. Shukla
3 SCC 410 · 1998 · Supreme Court
442
citing judgments

Loose sheets of paper, excel sheets, or diaries, often referred to as 'dumb documents,' are wholly irrelevant as evidence and not admissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act if they lack evidentiary value. Additions to income cannot be made solely based on such documents without corroborating, reliable, and admissible evidence supported by other circumstances.

Mumbai), DCIT v. Vipin Aggarwal
82 ITD 85 · 2002 · ITAT
237
citing judgments

Evidence corroborating entries of payments or loan/interest advancements found in seized material from a third party must specifically show the actual transfer of money from the third party to the recipient to be admissible.

CIT v. SMC Share Brokers Ltd.
288 ITR 345 · 2007 · High Court
181
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot make an adverse assessment based solely on the statement of a third party if that party refuses to be cross-examined by the assessee and no other corroborating material exists.

Principal Commissioner Income Tax, Central-2 v. Umesh Ishrani
108 Taxmann.com 437 · 2019 · High Court
168
citing judgments

An addition to income cannot be made solely based on entries in loose papers found during a search without conducting any independent inquiry or verification from the alleged seller or developer. Reliance solely on digital records without corroborative evidence is insufficient for an addition.

CIT v. Maulikkumar K. Shah
307 ITR 137 · 2008 · High Court
166
citing judgments

Additions on account of on-money receipts cannot be justified solely based on loose papers or 'sauda-chithis' without evidence of actual payment or a clear indication of a completed transaction within those documents.

CIT v. Sant Lal
118 Taxmann.com 432 · 2020 · High Court
154
citing judgments

An addition to income cannot be made solely on the basis of entries in a diary seized from a third party if the diary is not found in the assessee's premises, not in the assessee's handwriting, and the revenue fails to provide corroborative evidence linking the assessee to the diary.

CIT, Delhi v. D.K. Gupta
174 Taxmann 476 · 2008 · High Court
147
citing judgments
Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar
97 ITR 696 · 1974 · High Court
145
citing judgments

An addition to income cannot be made solely based on documents or material found from a third party's premises unless the Assessing Officer conducts an independent investigation, examines the third party, and establishes a clear link between the material and the assessee.

Anupam Tele Services v. ITO
366 ITR 122 · 2014 · High Court
124
citing judgments

Section 40A(3) disallowances are not absolute; genuine and bonafide cash payments, where the payee's identity is established and business expediency is proven, fall outside its scope, as the section's purpose is to curb unaccounted money, not disallow genuine expenditure.

Judgments on Section 132(4A)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Kanpur. vs. Shrisanjay Kaumar Agarwal, Agra

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 31/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Tax, Central Circle-2, Kanpur D-59, Kamla Nagar, Agra-282005 Pan: Aaupa2845H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.01.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Kanpur Dated 14.11.2022 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 153A R.W.S. 153C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit (A)-Iv, Kanpur Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- Made U/S 69A By The Ao Ignoring The Fact That Such Addition Was Made By The Ao On The Basis Of Entries Found On These Loose Papers Seized From The Possession Of Such A Person Who Was Having Business Relations With All Persons Named Therein Including Assessee. 2. Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit (A)-Iv, Kanpur Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- Made U/S 69A By Accepting The Denial By The Person From Whose Possession It Was Recovered & The Assessee Regarding The Relation Of Its Entries With Them Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In Totality. 3. That The Order Of The Cit(A) Being Erroneous In Law & Facts Be Set Aside & Order Of The A.O. Be Restored. 4. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Adduce Or Amend Any Ground Or Grounds On Or Before The Date Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Sh. Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 292CSection 69A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy, Income Tax Office vs. Maragathamani Shanmugam, Karur

ITA 1628/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1628/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -2, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Maragathamani Shanmugam, Vs. 54A, Muthu Nagar, Sengunthapuram, Karur – 639 002. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan:Abkps-2816-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1629/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -2, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ramasamy Moolimangalam Vs. Vaishnava Priya, 33, B7 Adhisri Apartments, Kothari Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan:Adwpv-0050-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1631/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -1, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Karuppanna Gounder Palaniappa Vs. Gounder Mariappan, No.1, 80 Feet Road, Sengunthapuram, Karur – 639 002. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan:Agppm-2363-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. 11.11.2025 20.01.2026 :-2-:

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69