Section 132A of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: ss.248, 251

Section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 248 (Powers to requisition) 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 248 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 132A is CIT v. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), cited in 3,235 of the 569 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 132A

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.

Pr. CIT v. Saumya Constructions (P.)Ltd.
387 ITR 529 · 2016 · High Court
670
citing judgments

Assessments under Section 153A cannot be sustained without any incriminating material found during the search that substantiates the additions. This principle applies even to completed assessments where no additional income is disclosed.

CIT v. Gurinder Singh Bawa
386 ITR 483 · 2016 · High Court
416
citing judgments

If no incriminating material is found during a search operation regarding a particular issue, then no addition can be made concerning that issue in an assessment under section 153A of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (P.) Ltd.
385 ITR 346 · 2016 · High Court
371
citing judgments

A statement made by an assessee under Section 131 during search proceedings, without any corroborating incriminating material found during the search, cannot solely constitute incriminating evidence for making additions in assessments under Section 153A or 153C.

Navnitlal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen
56 ITR 198 · 1965 · Supreme Court
230
citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) are binding on all officers and persons employed in the execution of the Income-tax Act. These circulars are binding even if they deviate from the provisions of the Act, particularly when issued to relieve hardships.

Keshavji Ravji and Co. v. CIT
82 ITR 913 · 1971 · Supreme Court
209
citing judgments
Saksham Commodities Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer
161 Taxmann.com 485 · 2024 · High Court
196
citing judgments

Recording satisfaction under Section 153C for initiating proceedings against a third person is not a mechanical exercise; it requires a finding that seized material has a direct bearing on the third person's income, and improper satisfaction vitiates the assessment. Abatement under the second proviso to Section 153A is an inevitable consequence of a search, irrespective of the Assessing Officer's opinion on the material's impact.

Pr. CIT v. Sunrise Finlease P. Ltd.
89 Taxmann.com 1 · 2018 · High Court
120
citing judgments
CIT v. Hotel Savera
239 ITR 795 · 1999 · High Court
119
citing judgments

When an assessee has sufficient interest-free own funds available to make interest-free advances or investments, it is presumed that such advances or investments are made from these interest-free funds, thereby preventing the disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii).

Gurinder Singh Bawa v. DCIT
28 Taxmann.com 328 · 2012 · ITAT
99
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 132A

Sajjan India Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-8(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3100/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Girish Agrawal, Am Sajjan India Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Urmi Estate, Tower A, 14Th Floor, 95, Tax 8(1)(2) Ganapatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai -400020. Vs. West, Mumbai Delisle Road, S. O. Mumbai – 400013. Pan/Gir No. Aaacs6498M (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. S. J. Jain Respondent By : Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing : 06.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.03.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal Including The Legal Grounds, Challenging The Validity Of The Notice Issued U/S. 148 Of The Act, Which Are As Follows: “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Upholding Validity Of Notice U/S.148 Merely Based On Information Received From Dcit, Central Circle 1 (4), Ahmedabad, Alleging Cash Payment By The Appellant Company On Booking Of Office With M/S. Goyal Safal Developers On 3-12-2011, Although Fact Of Payment Not Supported By Any Material Available On Record.

For Appellant: Shri. S. J. JainFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr. DR.)
Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A