Section 136 - Proceedings Before Income-tax Authorities to be Judicial Proceedings
Case Laws & Commentary - Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) - bharattax.co Treatise
Provision: Section 136 - any proceeding under the Act before an income-tax authority is deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228, and for the purposes of section 196, of the Indian Penal Code; every income-tax authority is deemed to be a Civil Court for the purposes of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (but not for Chapter XXVI of that Code).
Chapter / Part: Chapter XIII, Part C - Powers.
FA 2026 status: Not amended by the Finance Act, 2026; the IPC references are now read with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the CrPC references with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, under the savings/transition provisions of those codes.
Nature: Deeming provision underpinning the perjury sanction for false statements before income-tax authorities. Leading authority: Lalji Haridas (SC).
A. SECTION COMMENTARY
Clothing the proceedings with judicial character - for a purpose
Section 136 deems any proceeding before an income-tax authority to be a 'judicial proceeding' for specified, limited purposes: within the meaning of sections 193 (false evidence) and 228 (insult or interruption to a public servant in a judicial proceeding), and for the purposes of section 196 (using fabricated evidence) of the penal law; and it deems every income-tax authority to be a Civil Court for the purposes of section 195 of the procedural criminal law (which governs prosecutions for offences against public justice), but expressly not for the purposes of the chapter of that Code dealing with the powers of courts to take cognizance. The provision gives teeth to the oath administered under sections 131 and 132(4): a person who gives false evidence on oath before an income-tax authority commits perjury and is liable to be prosecuted.
The boundary the deeming does not cross - Lalji Haridas
The leading authority, the Supreme Court's decision in Lalji Haridas, marks both the reach and the limit of the deeming. The Court held, on the predecessor provision (section 37(4) of the 1922 Act, the analogue of section 136), that while proceedings before an income-tax officer are deemed to be judicial proceedings for the purposes of sections 193 and 228 IPC - so that false evidence before the officer is punishable as perjury - the income-tax officer is not thereby constituted a 'Court' for all purposes; in particular he is not a Court for section 195 of the procedural Code in the sense that would make his complaint the only competent route to prosecution. The deeming is purpose-specific and is not to be read as a wholesale conversion of the tax authority into a court.
Practical significance
For the practitioner, section 136 is the reason that statements recorded on oath under sections 131 and 132(4) are taken seriously and that a knowingly false statement carries criminal exposure. It also reinforces, by contrast, why a statement under section 133A (survey) - recorded without the power to administer oath, and so outside the judicial-proceeding deeming - lacks evidentiary sanctity. The transition to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 does not alter the substance: the references to the old codes are read, under the savings provisions, as references to the corresponding new provisions.
B. STATUTORY POSITION (verbatim text)
Reproduced below is section 136 as it stands in the bare Act.
136. Any proceeding under this Act before an income-tax authority shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 and for the purposes of section 196 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and every income-tax authority shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purposes of section 195, but not for the purposes of Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
C. AUTHORITIES
Cluster 1 - The judicial-proceeding deeming is purpose-specific
Lalji Haridas v. State of Maharashtra (1964) 52 ITR 423 (SC)
Forum / Citation: Supreme Court of India, 7 February 1964. Reported: (1964) 52 ITR 423 (SC); AIR 1964 SC 1154; (1964) 6 SCR 700.
Facts: A complaint of perjury was sought to be founded on evidence given on oath before an Income-tax Officer; a question arose as to the character of the proceeding and the competent route to prosecution.
Held: Proceedings before an Income-tax Officer are deemed to be judicial proceedings for the purposes of sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, so that false evidence given before the officer is punishable as perjury; but the deeming is purpose-specific, and the Income-tax Officer is not thereby made a 'Court' for all purposes (in particular for section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the manner contended).
Principle: Section 136 confers judicial character on the proceeding only for the enumerated penal purposes; it does not convert the income-tax authority into a court generally.
Relevance: The leading authority on the scope of the section 136 deeming.
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 136 - Proceedings Before Income-tax Authorities to be Judicial Proceedings
Case Laws & Commentary - Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) - bharattax.co Treatise
Provision: Section 136 - any proceeding under the Act before an income-tax authority is deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228, and for the purposes of section 196, of the Indian Penal Code; every income-tax authority is deemed to be a Civil Court for the purposes of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (but not for Chapter XXVI of that Code).
Chapter / Part: Chapter XIII, Part C - Powers.
FA 2026 status: Not amended by the Finance Act, 2026; the IPC references are now read with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the CrPC references with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, under the savings/transition provisions of those codes.
Nature: Deeming provision underpinning the perjury sanction for false statements before income-tax authorities. Leading authority: Lalji Haridas (SC).
A. SECTION COMMENTARY
Clothing the proceedings with judicial character - for a purpose
Section 136 deems any proceeding before an income-tax authority to be a 'judicial proceeding' for specified, limited purposes: within the meaning of sections 193 (false evidence) and 228 (insult or interruption to a public servant in a judicial proceeding), and for the purposes of section 196 (using fabricated evidence) of the penal law; and it deems every income-tax authority to be a Civil Court for the purposes of section 195 of the procedural criminal law (which governs prosecutions for offences against public justice), but expressly not for the purposes of the chapter of that Code dealing with the powers of courts to take cognizance. The provision gives teeth to the oath administered under sections 131 and 132(4): a person who gives false evidence on oath before an income-tax authority commits perjury and is liable to be prosecuted.
The boundary the deeming does not cross - Lalji Haridas
The leading authority, the Supreme Court's decision in Lalji Haridas, marks both the reach and the limit of the deeming. The Court held, on the predecessor provision (section 37(4) of the 1922 Act, the analogue of section 136), that while proceedings before an income-tax officer are deemed to be judicial proceedings for the purposes of sections 193 and 228 IPC - so that false evidence before the officer is punishable as perjury - the income-tax officer is not thereby constituted a 'Court' for all purposes; in particular he is not a Court for section 195 of the procedural Code in the sense that would make his complaint the only competent route to prosecution. The deeming is purpose-specific and is not to be read as a wholesale conversion of the tax authority into a court.
Practical significance
For the practitioner, section 136 is the reason that statements recorded on oath under sections 131 and 132(4) are taken seriously and that a knowingly false statement carries criminal exposure. It also reinforces, by contrast, why a statement under section 133A (survey) - recorded without the power to administer oath, and so outside the judicial-proceeding deeming - lacks evidentiary sanctity. The transition to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 does not alter the substance: the references to the old codes are read, under the savings provisions, as references to the corresponding new provisions.
B. STATUTORY POSITION (verbatim text)
Reproduced below is section 136 as it stands in the bare Act.
136. Any proceeding under this Act before an income-tax authority shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 and for the purposes of section 196 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and every income-tax authority shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purposes of section 195, but not for the purposes of Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
C. AUTHORITIES
Cluster 1 - The judicial-proceeding deeming is purpose-specific
Lalji Haridas v. State of Maharashtra (1964) 52 ITR 423 (SC)
Forum / Citation: Supreme Court of India, 7 February 1964. Reported: (1964) 52 ITR 423 (SC); AIR 1964 SC 1154; (1964) 6 SCR 700.
Facts: A complaint of perjury was sought to be founded on evidence given on oath before an Income-tax Officer; a question arose as to the character of the proceeding and the competent route to prosecution.
Held: Proceedings before an Income-tax Officer are deemed to be judicial proceedings for the purposes of sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, so that false evidence given before the officer is punishable as perjury; but the deeming is purpose-specific, and the Income-tax Officer is not thereby made a 'Court' for all purposes (in particular for section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the manner contended).
Principle: Section 136 confers judicial character on the proceeding only for the enumerated penal purposes; it does not convert the income-tax authority into a court generally.
Relevance: The leading authority on the scope of the section 136 deeming.
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.