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

ACIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai vs. Purnandu Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3521/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सिं./Ita No.3521/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2005-2006) Dcit, Central Cir-20, Mumbai Vs. Shri Purnandu Jain, B- 201, Minoo Minar, Veera Desai Road, Andheri(W), Mumbai-400053 स्थममी रेखम सिं./ जीआइआय सिं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacpj 7016 P (अऩीरमथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. यनधमवरयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.S.Bist यमजस्र् की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Devendra Mehta सुनर्मई की तमयीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2015 घोषणम की तमयीख/Date Of Pronouncement 9/10/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2005-06, In The Matter Of Imposition Of Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act. 2. There Is A Delay Of 66 Days In Filing The Appeal By Revenue. Considering The Reasons Given For Delay, We Condone The Delay Of 66 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Revenue & The Appeal Is Heard On Merits. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. Facts In Brief Are That A Search & Seizure Action U/S.132 Of The Act, Was Conducted In The Case Of Ankur Group On 26-4-2007. The Assessee Is A Member Of Ankur Group. In Response To The Notice U/S.153A Of The Act

For Appellant: Shri B.S.BistFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Mehta
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Sayed Ahmed Abbas Naqvi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2807/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2807 & 2808/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06) Syed Ahmed Abbas Naqvi Dy. Cit, Central Circle-2, बनाम/ 705, Sea Creast No. 2, Mumbai J. P. Road, Seven Bunglows, Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 061 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Abvpn 7551 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Girish Dave & Ms.Kadambari Dave सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 09.09.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 09.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: The Assessee, An Individual, Is A Mumbai Based Interior Designer. He, Along With His Wife, Muskan Naqvi, Was Subject To Search Action U/S.132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) By The Investigation Wing (Mumbai) Of The Revenue At Their Residence, On 05.01.2007, As A Part Of The Search Operations On Hasan Ali Khan (Hak) Group. The Case Was Subsequently Centralized With Central Circle-2, Mumbai On 20.03.2007 & Assessment For The Different Years Framed U/S.153A R/W S. 143(3) Of The Act. We Are In These Appeals Concerned With The Assessments For Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2004-05 & 2005-06, Made Vide Assessment Orders Dated 31.12.2008

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &
Section 132Section 153A