Section 132 of the Income Tax Act

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

Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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 is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383), cited in 5,834 of the 14,598 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 132

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
229 ITR 383 · 1998 · Supreme Court
5,834
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.
88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court
2,664
citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

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.

CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd.
374 ITR 645 · 2015 · High Court
1,823
citing judgments

In Section 153A proceedings, the scope of assessment extends to abated proceedings, enabling an assessee to raise fresh legal claims that could have been made in regular assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society
397 ITR 344 · 2017 · Supreme Court
1,589
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, a notice is legally unsustainable if there is no incriminating material correlated to the specific assessment years for which reassessment is sought.

CIT v. Simit P. Sheth
356 ITR 451 · 2013 · High Court
1,465
citing judgments

Additions for alleged bogus purchases should be restricted to the profit element, not the entire turnover. The profit element is often estimated at 12.5% of the purported bogus purchases.

Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT
187 ITR 688 · 1991 · Supreme Court
1,372
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) possesses co-terminus powers with the Assessing Officer and can direct the Assessing Officer to perform actions he failed to do, but cannot introduce a new source of income in the assessment. The appellate assessment must be confined to the items of income that were the subject matter of the original assessment.

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.

Judgments on Section 132

Amit Pahuja, Indore vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 868/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeamit Pahuja Vs Dcit, Circle-1, Thane 6 Roopam Nagar, Near Manik Office Of Dcit, Ashar It Park, 6Th Bagh Over Bridge, Indore, Floor, Road No.16Z, Wagle Madhya Pradesh-452013 Industrial Estate, Thane-400604 Pan: Atspp4469M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Jaideep Jain Adv. & Shri Ashish Goyal Adv. (Virtually Appeared) Revenue By : Shri Mukesh Thakwani (Sr.Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17/06/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2026 O R D E R Per:Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [For Brevity The “Ld. Cit(A)”], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2019-20, Date Of Order 16.01.2026. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Assessment Unit Income Tax Department (For Brevity The ‘Ld. Ao’) Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Date Of Order 13.01.2025. 2 Amit Pahuja 2. The Assessee Has Taken The Additional Grounds Which Are As Below: “The Following May Kindly Be Admitted As Additional Grounds: - 3. That, The Proceeding Initiated By Ld.Ao U/S 148 Are Illegal, Invalid, Without Jurisdiction, Void-Ab-Initio, Non Est, Barred By Limitation. 4. That, The Reopening Of Assessment Beyond Three Years Is Bad In Law, As The Conditions Prescribed Under Section 149(1)(B) Have Not Been Satisfied. 5. That, The Approval Was Taken From Pr. Cit Instead Of Pr. Ccit/Ccit As Mandated Under Section 151 In Case Notice U/S 148 Issued Beyond 3 Years.”

For Appellant: Shri Jaideep Jain Adv. & Shri Ashish Goyal Adv. (Virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Thakwani (Sr.DR)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 250Section 80G

Nikunj Ajitkumar Jani, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO Ward 5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 487/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleincome Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(2), Mr. Nikunj Ajitkumar Jani, A 301, Ganesh Skyline, Income Tax Office, Behind Sayona Tilak 3 Vejalpur, Vs. Nirnaynagar S.O., Gujarat Ahmedabad City, Gujarat Pan: Ahtpj6113F (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chintan Thakker, Ar : Shri Saresa Kartik Laxmanbhai, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing : 16.04.2026 : 19.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per : Suchitra Kamble, J M: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short “Cit(A)”] Dated 26.12.2025 For The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Law & On Facts In Completing The Reassessment U/S 147 R.W.S 144B, Which Is Bad In Law, Without Valid Assumption Of Jurisdiction & Hence Liable To Be Quashed. 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Disallowing The Deduction Of ₹1,00,000/- Claimed Under Section 80Ggc, Despite The Appellant Having Fulfilled All Statutory Conditions Prescribed Under The Act. 3. The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Law In Treating The Donation As Bogus Without Bringing On Record Any Incriminating Material Or Evidence To Prove That The Donation Amount Was Returned To The Appellant, Either In Cash Or In Any Other Manner. Mr. Nikunj Ajitkumar Jani

For Appellant: Shri Chintan Thakker, AR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 29CSection 80G