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

Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, Chennai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and

ITA 1044/CHNY/2023[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) The Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1103/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Shri S. Dwarakesh, Ca Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 18, Chennai (Hereinafter In Short `The Ld.Cit(A)') Dated 26.07.2023 Passed For Assessment Year (Hereinafter In Short `Ay') 2019-20.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

Syeda Mariam, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Bengaluru

In the result we accepted the legal issue and held that the assessment order dated 30

ITA 341/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Syeda Mariam The Income Tax Officer No. 482, 14Th Main Ward - 3(1)(4) Koramangala 3Rd Block Vs. Bmtc Building, 80Ft. Road Bangalore 560034 6Th Block, Koramangala Pan – Aazpm2737P Bengaluru 560095 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca Revenue By: Shri V. Parithivel, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K.,J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The Cit(A)-11, Bengaluru Dated 28.12.2023 In Respect Of The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income On 28.07.2014. Thereafter A Survey U/S. 133A Was Conducted At The Company M/S. Intact Developers P. Ltd., In Which The Assessee Is A Director & Based On The Survey It Was Found That The Assessee Had Lent Unsecured Loans To The Company & In Support Of The Unsecured Loans The Assessee Filed Confirmation Letters From The Company. Insofar As The Source For The Loan, The Assessee Submitted That She Got Capital Gain In Ays 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Out Of This She Offered Loans To The Company. The Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) Verified The Details Filed By The Assessee & Came To The Conclusion That There

For Appellant: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 54Section 548Section 54B

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Hickson Dadajee Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2052/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am Income Tax Officer Hickson Dadajee Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 570, Aayakar Mazannine Floor, Bhawan, Mamasaheb Varerkar Bridge, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Grant Road, S.O., Mumbai-400 007 Pan/Gir No. Aaach 0986 M (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul J. Shah Respondent By : Shri P. D. Chougule Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 O R D E R Per Amit Shukla, J M: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 20.02.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) & Proceedings U/S. 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act') For The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under: 1. "Whether In Facts & Circumstances Of The Ease & In Law, The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding The Order Passed By Ao U/S 154 Rs 250 Dated 31.03.2021 As "Bad In Law Without Appreciating The Fact That Earlier Order Was Inadvertently Passed Only "U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act & The Second Order Was Passed U/S 250 Rs 154 Of The It Act" To Correct These Bonafide Mistake Occurred & Hence The Same Is Covered By The Provisions Of Section 292 B Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vipul J. ShahFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 292

Gopuram Enterprises Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, all six these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1007/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006 & 1007/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 (Q2), 2013-2014 (Q3). 2013-14 (Q4), 2014-2015 (Q1), 2014-2015 (Q2) & 2014-2015 (Q3) M/S. Gopuram Enterprises Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of New No.8-A, Madha Church Road, Vs. Income Tax, R.A. Puram, Cc 1(1) Chennai 600 028. Chennai Pan: Aaacs 9903R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R.Devaraj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Irs, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Bunch Of Six Appeals Being Ita Nos. 1002-1007 /Chny/2024 Filed By The Assessee ‘Gopuram Enterprises Private Limited’ [Formerly Known As ‘Savorit Limited’] Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of Even Date 31.10.2019 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Chennai & Pertain To The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2014-15. Ita Nos/ 1002 To 1007Chny/2024 2. The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds Of Appeal For All The Assessment Years. We Will Take Up Ita No. 1002/Chny/2024 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 (Q2) As Lead Case. Grounds Of Appeal Filed In Ita No. 1002/Chny/2024 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 (Q2) Are Reproduced As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri. R.Devaraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 292