Section 132A - Powers to Requisition Books of Account, etc.
Case Laws & Commentary - Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) - bharattax.co Treatise
Provision: Section 132A - power, on a recorded 'reason to believe', to requisition from another officer or authority (police, other department, court) books, documents or assets already taken into custody by that authority, so that they may be dealt with under the Act.
Chapter / Part: Chapter XIII, Part C - Powers.
FA 2026 status: Not amended by the Finance Act, 2026.
Nature: The requisition counterpart of section 132; engaged where assets are already in another authority's custody. 'Reason to believe' jurisprudence mirrors section 132.
A. SECTION COMMENTARY
Requisition, not search
Section 132A addresses the situation in which the books, documents or assets the Department is interested in are already in the lawful custody of some other officer or authority - most commonly cash or valuables seized by the police, the custody of another government department, or articles produced before a court. A search under section 132 would be inapposite (the assets are not with the person to be searched), so the Act provides a power of requisition: the specified senior authority may, on the same kind of recorded 'reason to believe' as governs section 132 (referable to the situations in the section), require the other authority to deliver the books, documents or assets to the requisitioning officer, whereupon they are deemed to have been seized under section 132 and are dealt with under sections 132 and 132B.
The 'reason to believe' is real and reviewable
Because the trigger is the same 'reason to believe', the section 132 jurisprudence applies: there must be information in possession enabling the belief, and a rational nexus between the two. The Supreme Court has been astute to prevent the requisition power from being used on the mere fact that cash has been found by the police. In Vindhya Metal Corporation the Court held that mere possession of a large sum of money, without material to show that it represented undisclosed income, does not justify a requisition; and in Tarsem Kumar the Court construed the requisition power strictly, holding that it cannot be exercised in respect of assets that the other authority did not itself validly seize, and emphasising the need for genuine satisfaction referable to the statute.
B. STATUTORY POSITION (verbatim text)
Reproduced below is section 132A as it stands in the bare Act.
132A. (1) Where the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Director or Director or the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that—
(a) any person to whom a summons under sub-section (1) of section 37 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under sub-section (1) of section 131 of this Act, or a notice under sub-section
(4) of section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub-section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause to be produced, such books of account or other documents, as required by such summons or notice and the said books of account or other documents have been taken into custody by any officer or authority under any other law for the time being in force, or
(b) any books of account or other documents will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under this Act and any person to whom a summons or notice as aforesaid has been or might be issued will not, or would not, produce or cause to be produced, such books of account or other documents on the return of such books of account or other documents by any officer or authority by whom or which such books of account or other documents have been taken into custody under any other law for the time being in force, or
(c) any assets represent either wholly or partly income or property which has not been, or would not have been, disclosed for the purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or this Act by any person from whose possession or control such assets have been taken into custody by any officer or authority under any other law for the time being in force, then, the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Director or Director or the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may authorise any Additional Director, Additional Commissioner, Joint Director, Joint Commissioner, Assistant Director or Deputy Director, Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Income-tax Officer (hereafter in this section and in sub-section (2) of section 278D referred to as the requisitioning officer) to require the officer or authority referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), as the case may be, to deliver such books of account, other documents or assets to the requisitioning officer.
Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the reason to believe, as recorded by the income-tax authority under this sub-section, shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal.
(2) On a requisition being made under sub-section (1), the officer or authority referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), as the case may be, of that sub-section shall deliver the books of account, other documents or assets to the requisitioning officer either forthwith or when such officer or authority is of the opinion that it is no longer necessary to retain the same in his or its custody.
(3) Where any books of account, other documents or assets have been delivered to the requisitioning officer, the provisions of sub-sections (4A) to (14) (both inclusive) of section 132 and section 132B shall, so far as may be, apply as if such books of account, other documents or assets had been seized under sub-section (1) of section 132 by the requisitioning officer from the custody of the person referred to in clause (a) or clause
(b) or clause (c), as the case may be, of sub-section (1) of this section and as if for the words "the authorised officer" occurring in any of the aforesaid sub-sections (4A) to (14), the words "the requisitioning officer" were substituted.
C. AUTHORITIES
Cluster 1 - 'Reason to believe' for requisition; mere possession of cash is not enough
CIT v. Vindhya Metal Corporation (1997) 224 ITR 614 (SC)
Forum / Citation: Supreme Court of India, 1997. Reported: (1997) 224 ITR 614 (SC).
Facts: A large sum of cash recovered from a person by the police was sought to be requisitioned under section 132A, without independent material that it was undisclosed income.
Held: Mere unexplained possession of a sum of money, without anything more, would not constitute 'information' enabling a reasonable belief that it represented undisclosed income; the requisition under section 132A was therefore not justified. The condition precedent - reason to believe referable to the statute - was not satisfied.
Principle: Possession of cash, by itself, is not 'information' for a section 132A requisition; there must be material enabling the requisite belief.
Relevance: The leading authority confining the requisition power, the requisition analogue of Ajit Jain.
CIT v. Tarsem Kumar (1986) 161 ITR 505 (SC)
Forum / Citation: Supreme Court of India, 1986. Reported: (1986) 161 ITR 505 (SC); AIR 1986 SC 1521.
Held: The requisition power must be construed strictly and in conformity with its statutory pre-conditions; it operates in respect of assets validly in the custody of the other authority and requires genuine satisfaction referable to the situations contemplated by the provision. The power cannot be stretched beyond its terms.
Principle: Section 132A is a power of strict construction; it is confined to its statutory pre-conditions and to assets properly within the other authority's custody.
Relevance: Establishes the strict-construction approach to the requisition power.
Compiled for the bharattax.co Treatise on the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026). Statutory text reproduced verbatim from the bare Act (Chapter XIII, ss. 116-138). Each authority is cited with its full parallel reporter citations as reported; Supreme Court, High Court and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) rulings are identified as such. Where a section has not been directly construed, that is stated candidly and the nearest governing authority is given. For professional reference; not legal advice.
CHAPTER XIII - INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES
Section 132A - Powers to Requisition Books of Account, etc.
Case Laws & Commentary - Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) - bharattax.co Treatise
Provision: Section 132A - power, on a recorded 'reason to believe', to requisition from another officer or authority (police, other department, court) books, documents or assets already taken into custody by that authority, so that they may be dealt with under the Act.
Chapter / Part: Chapter XIII, Part C - Powers.
FA 2026 status: Not amended by the Finance Act, 2026.
Nature: The requisition counterpart of section 132; engaged where assets are already in another authority's custody. 'Reason to believe' jurisprudence mirrors section 132.
A. SECTION COMMENTARY
Requisition, not search
Section 132A addresses the situation in which the books, documents or assets the Department is interested in are already in the lawful custody of some other officer or authority - most commonly cash or valuables seized by the police, the custody of another government department, or articles produced before a court. A search under section 132 would be inapposite (the assets are not with the person to be searched), so the Act provides a power of requisition: the specified senior authority may, on the same kind of recorded 'reason to believe' as governs section 132 (referable to the situations in the section), require the other authority to deliver the books, documents or assets to the requisitioning officer, whereupon they are deemed to have been seized under section 132 and are dealt with under sections 132 and 132B.
The 'reason to believe' is real and reviewable
Because the trigger is the same 'reason to believe', the section 132 jurisprudence applies: there must be information in possession enabling the belief, and a rational nexus between the two. The Supreme Court has been astute to prevent the requisition power from being used on the mere fact that cash has been found by the police. In Vindhya Metal Corporation the Court held that mere possession of a large sum of money, without material to show that it represented undisclosed income, does not justify a requisition; and in Tarsem Kumar the Court construed the requisition power strictly, holding that it cannot be exercised in respect of assets that the other authority did not itself validly seize, and emphasising the need for genuine satisfaction referable to the statute.
B. STATUTORY POSITION (verbatim text)
Reproduced below is section 132A as it stands in the bare Act.
132A. (1) Where the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Director or Director or the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that—
(a) any person to whom a summons under sub-section (1) of section 37 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under sub-section (1) of section 131 of this Act, or a notice under sub-section
(4) of section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub-section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause to be produced, such books of account or other documents, as required by such summons or notice and the said books of account or other documents have been taken into custody by any officer or authority under any other law for the time being in force, or
(b) any books of account or other documents will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under this Act and any person to whom a summons or notice as aforesaid has been or might be issued will not, or would not, produce or cause to be produced, such books of account or other documents on the return of such books of account or other documents by any officer or authority by whom or which such books of account or other documents have been taken into custody under any other law for the time being in force, or
(c) any assets represent either wholly or partly income or property which has not been, or would not have been, disclosed for the purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or this Act by any person from whose possession or control such assets have been taken into custody by any officer or authority under any other law for the time being in force, then, the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Director or Director or the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may authorise any Additional Director, Additional Commissioner, Joint Director, Joint Commissioner, Assistant Director or Deputy Director, Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Income-tax Officer (hereafter in this section and in sub-section (2) of section 278D referred to as the requisitioning officer) to require the officer or authority referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), as the case may be, to deliver such books of account, other documents or assets to the requisitioning officer.
Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the reason to believe, as recorded by the income-tax authority under this sub-section, shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal.
(2) On a requisition being made under sub-section (1), the officer or authority referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), as the case may be, of that sub-section shall deliver the books of account, other documents or assets to the requisitioning officer either forthwith or when such officer or authority is of the opinion that it is no longer necessary to retain the same in his or its custody.
(3) Where any books of account, other documents or assets have been delivered to the requisitioning officer, the provisions of sub-sections (4A) to (14) (both inclusive) of section 132 and section 132B shall, so far as may be, apply as if such books of account, other documents or assets had been seized under sub-section (1) of section 132 by the requisitioning officer from the custody of the person referred to in clause (a) or clause
(b) or clause (c), as the case may be, of sub-section (1) of this section and as if for the words "the authorised officer" occurring in any of the aforesaid sub-sections (4A) to (14), the words "the requisitioning officer" were substituted.
C. AUTHORITIES
Cluster 1 - 'Reason to believe' for requisition; mere possession of cash is not enough
CIT v. Vindhya Metal Corporation (1997) 224 ITR 614 (SC)
Forum / Citation: Supreme Court of India, 1997. Reported: (1997) 224 ITR 614 (SC).
Facts: A large sum of cash recovered from a person by the police was sought to be requisitioned under section 132A, without independent material that it was undisclosed income.
Held: Mere unexplained possession of a sum of money, without anything more, would not constitute 'information' enabling a reasonable belief that it represented undisclosed income; the requisition under section 132A was therefore not justified. The condition precedent - reason to believe referable to the statute - was not satisfied.
Principle: Possession of cash, by itself, is not 'information' for a section 132A requisition; there must be material enabling the requisite belief.
Relevance: The leading authority confining the requisition power, the requisition analogue of Ajit Jain.
CIT v. Tarsem Kumar (1986) 161 ITR 505 (SC)
Forum / Citation: Supreme Court of India, 1986. Reported: (1986) 161 ITR 505 (SC); AIR 1986 SC 1521.
Held: The requisition power must be construed strictly and in conformity with its statutory pre-conditions; it operates in respect of assets validly in the custody of the other authority and requires genuine satisfaction referable to the situations contemplated by the provision. The power cannot be stretched beyond its terms.
Principle: Section 132A is a power of strict construction; it is confined to its statutory pre-conditions and to assets properly within the other authority's custody.
Relevance: Establishes the strict-construction approach to the requisition power.
Compiled for the bharattax.co Treatise on the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026). Statutory text reproduced verbatim from the bare Act (Chapter XIII, ss. 116-138). Each authority is cited with its full parallel reporter citations as reported; Supreme Court, High Court and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) rulings are identified as such. Where a section has not been directly construed, that is stated candidly and the nearest governing authority is given. For professional reference; not legal advice.