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

Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 697/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 697/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Lakshmi Machine Works The Acit, Ltd., V. Company Circle – Iv(2), (Amalgamated Company Of Lmw Coimbatore. Machinery Ltd W.E.F. 01.04.2012), S.R.K.V. Post, Perianaickenpalayam, Coimbatore – 641 020. Pan : Aaacl5244N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Palanikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Company Circle Iv(2), Coimbatore Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) In Pursuance Of Directions Of Dispute Resolution Panel, Chennai In F.No.Drp/Che/05/2013, Directions Dated 28.11.2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 16.01.2014. I.T.A. No.697/Chny/2014 2 2. At The Outset, Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Drew Our Attention To Additional Grounds Raised Vide Letter Dated 25.01.2016. He Referred The Following Additional Grounds:- (I) The Impugned Order, U/S.143 R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 16.01.2014 On The Dissolved Company M/S. Rieter Lmw Machinery Limited, Is Opposed To Law & Ab Initio Void. (Ii) The Learned Drp, Ought To Have Quashed The Draft Order Of The Tpo, As The Company Stood Dissolved With Effect From 01.04.2012, As Per The Order Of The Hon’Ble High Court Of Madras Dated 26Th Day Of April 2013, A Copy Of Which Position Was Brought To The Notice Of The Drp, In The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Palanikumar, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(11)

Ultra Portfolio Management Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8908/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Ultra Portfolio Management Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, H-2, Top Floor, Suneja Chamber, Circle-27(1), Alaknanda Commercial Complex, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacu0117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Verma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20Th September, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2011 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.3,06,078/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) On 10.01.2018 At The Returned Income. Subsequently, On The Basis Of Information Received From The Dcit, Central Circle (2), Mumbai Dated 5Th February, 2016 Wherein It Was Informed That Shri Shirish C. Shah, Who Happened To Be The Main Person Engaged In Providing Bogus Accommodation Entries Through The Companies Directly/Indirectly Controlled By Him & The Assessee Company Has Received Accommodation Entry Of Rs.25 Lakhs From M/S Dhanus Technologies Ltd., The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Recording Reasons And, Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Verma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68