Section 292B of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.522

Section 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 522 (Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 522 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 292B is Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (267 ITR 272), cited in 501 of the 782 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 292B

Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
267 ITR 272 · 2004 · Supreme Court
501
citing judgments

CBDT and CBEC circulars, along with administrative instructions, are binding on departmental authorities, who must not act in contravention of them. However, these circulars and instructions are not binding on courts or assessees.

PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
416 ITR 613 · 2019 · Supreme Court
308
citing judgments

A notice issued under section 148 to a non-existent entity, such as an amalgamating company post-merger, is a substantive illegality, rendering assessment proceedings void ab initio. Participation in such proceedings does not estop the assessee from challenging the validity of the notice.

Spice Infotainment Ltd. v. CIT
247 CTR 500 · 2012 · High Court
114
citing judgments

An assessment framed in the name of a company that has ceased to exist due to amalgamation is invalid, even if the amalgamated company participated in the proceedings. Such a defect cannot be cured under section 292B of the Income-tax Act.

247 CTR 500 (Delhi), (c) CIT v. Dimension Apparels (P.) Ltd.
370 ITR 288 · 2015 · High Court
98
citing judgments
Savita Kapila v. ACIT
118 Taxmann.com 46 · 2020 · High Court
98
citing judgments

There is no legal requirement for a legal representative to report an assessee's death to the income tax department; consequently, a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 to a deceased person is invalid as it lacks proper jurisdiction.

PCIT v. Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd.
443 ITR 194 · 2022 · Supreme Court
95
citing judgments

An assessment framed by the Assessing Officer in the name of a defunct transferor company is valid if the assessee failed to intimate the AO about the merger or amalgamation.

PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
397 ITR 681 · 2017 · High Court
84
citing judgments

For claiming weighted deduction under section 35(2AB), the existence of recognition for a Research and Development (R&D) Centre is relevant, not necessarily the date of approval or recognition.

Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. CIT
186 ITR 278 · 1990 · Supreme Court
79
citing judgments

Upon amalgamation, the amalgamating company ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. Therefore, any assessment or proceeding initiated against a non-existent amalgamating company is invalid as it is no longer considered a 'person' under the Income-tax Act.

Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT
280 ITR 396 · 2006 · High Court
68
citing judgments

Section 292B of the Income Tax Act applies only to procedural irregularities and cannot cure fundamental jurisdictional defects, such as the non-issue of a mandatory Section 148 notice for reassessment or framing an assessment against a non-existing or dead person.

DCIT v. Sunita Finlease Ltd.
330 ITR 491 · 2011 · High Court
60
citing judgments

CBDT administrative instructions and circulars are binding on income tax authorities and departmental officers, who must follow them during the assessment process and cannot act in contravention, even though these instructions are not binding on courts or assessees.

Judgments on Section 292B

Shri Jitesh Jayantibhai Jasani, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-3 (1) (1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 869/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Sept 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.869/Rjt/2025 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 ] Jitesh Jayantibhai Jasani, Ito Ward 3(1)(1), Rajkot, "Krushnkunj", New Gopal Park, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Vs. Ankur Vidhyalay Main Road, Road, Rajkot, Gujarat-360001 Street No 3, Near Guruprasad Chowk, Rajkot, Gujarat-360004 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ajfpj7941P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Fenil H. Mehta. Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2026 25/09/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.09.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘Ao’) U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 21.03.2024. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: 1. That The Learned Cit(A) Has Grievously Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Learned A.O. In Making The Addition Of Rs.3,70,000/- U/S 69A R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act On Account Of Alleged On-Money Payment Made To Purchase Unit No. 1018 In Project R.K. Empire.

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. SR DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69

Rupee Soren L/H of Shibu Soren, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITSSA 100/DEL/1997[01/04/1986 to 26/04/1996]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2026

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Bleit(Ss) A No. 100/Del/1997 Block Period : 1.04.1986 To 26.04.1996 Shibu Soren Through Vs. Acit, Cc-6, New Delhi Rupee Soren Legal Heir Of Shibu Soren) Vill-Nemra Po Barlanga Ps Barlanga Jharkhand-829110 (Pan: Asnps4286P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca, Shri Uma Shankar, Adv & Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv. (Vc) Respondent By : Shri K. Hauthang, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21.08.2026 Order Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Block Assessment Order Framed By The Acit, Cc-6, Delhi For The Block Period 1.4.1986 To 26.4.1996 U/S. 158Bc Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As Act) Vide His Order Dated 29.4.1997. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of The Assessee Is As Regards To Assumption Of Jurisdiction For Farming Of Assessment U/S. 158Bc Without Issuing Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Act After Filing Of Return Of Income For The Block Period In Terms Of Notice U/S. 158Bc Of The Act. For This Assessee Has Raised The Ground No. 2 Vide Concise Grounds Of Appeal, Which Reads As Under:- “2. That The Impugned Assessment Farmed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, Is Without Jurisdiction As No Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, Was Issued & Served After Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Undisclosed Income In Pursuance To Notice Issued U/S. 158Bc Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Shri Shailesh GuptaFor Respondent: Shri K. Hauthang, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 158Section 158B

Late Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta Through His Wife, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 48(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5834/DEL/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Late Shri Rajesh Kumar Vs Ito, Ward 48(2), New Gupta Through L/H Sunita Delhi Gupta, Jao: Ito, Ward 46(4), Up-21, First Floor, New Delhi Maurya Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi – 110034 Pan: Aagpg3246A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Akash Ojha, Adv. Respondent By Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 13.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.08.2026 Order Per Mahavir Singh, Vp : The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Legal Heir & Wife (Smt. Sunita Gupta) Of The Deceased-Assessee (Rajesh Kumar Gupta) Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac) Delhi (‘Cit(A)’ In Short) Dated 24.3.2026 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi – 16/10003/2020-21 Arising From The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 30.12.2019 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act (‘The Act’ In Short) For Ay 2012-13. 2. When The Matter Was Called For Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Stated The Facts That Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta (Now Deceased) Was Expired On 05.03.2014 & Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act Was Issued By The Ito, Ward 47(1), New Delhi On 30.3.2019 (Copy Of The Notice U/S. 148 Is Enclosed At Apb Page No. 4). Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Before Us, Stated That The Notice U/S. 148 Was Issued On Dead Person On 30.3.2019 Whereas The Information With The Department Was Available That The Assessee Has Been Expired, Which Is Clear From The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Dated 29.3.2016 Wherein, It Is Clearly Mentioned That The Assessment Was Framed On Late Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta Through His Legal Heir Smt. Sunita Gupta (Wife Of The Assessee) (Copy Of Assessment Order Is Enclosed At Apb Page 2-3).

Section 147Section 148