Section 292C of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.524

Section 292C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 524 (Presumption as to assets, books of account, etc) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 524 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 292C is K.P. Varghese v. ITO (131 ITR 597), cited in 989 of the 1,055 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 292C

K.P. Varghese v. ITO
131 ITR 597 · 1981 · Supreme Court
989
citing judgments

An addition to income cannot be made merely on the basis of a difference in valuation of assets or a Valuation Officer's report without establishing actual understatement of consideration or the source of unexplained funds through proper enquiry. The Assessing Officer must conduct proper enquiry and satisfy the conditions for making such additions.

CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears
362 ITR 673 · 2014 · Supreme Court
528
citing judgments

The recording of a satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer is a jurisdictional prerequisite for assessments under Section 153C, and the six-year limitation period for such assessments is reckoned from the date this satisfaction is recorded.

Society v. UOI
394 ITR 220 · 2017 · Supreme Court
493
citing judgments

Uncorroborated loose papers or documents found during a search operation have no evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining undisclosed income. Additions based on such material require independent evidence to establish trustworthiness and a direct link to the assessee.

CBI v. V.C. Shukla
3 SCC 410 · 1998 · Supreme Court
442
citing judgments

Loose sheets of paper, excel sheets, or diaries, often referred to as 'dumb documents,' are wholly irrelevant as evidence and not admissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act if they lack evidentiary value. Additions to income cannot be made solely based on such documents without corroborating, reliable, and admissible evidence supported by other circumstances.

CIT v. R. Nalini Devi ITTA 232 of 2013 (A. P)
294 ITR 49 · 2007 · Supreme Court
299
citing judgments

Additions to income cannot be made solely based on uncorroborated third-party statements, documents, or loose sheets seized during a search, and such evidence requires the assessee to be provided with an opportunity for cross-examination.

DCIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma
159 Taxmann.com 179 · 2024 · High Court
269
citing judgments

Loose sheets of paper containing jottings, not shown to be part of regularly maintained books of accounts, do not constitute incriminating material for initiating assessment under section 153C. The satisfaction note required for 153C proceedings must specify the assessment year to which the alleged incriminating material belongs.

Common Cause v. Union of India
77 Taxmann.com 245 · 2017 · Supreme Court
267
citing judgments

Additions under the Income Tax Act cannot be made solely based on entries in loose sheets, dumb documents, or mere sworn statements without independent, reliable, and cogent corroborating evidence. Uncorroborated loose papers are not admissible evidence on their own, even if the original context was criminal investigation.

109 TTJ 700 (Del) SMC Share Brokers Ltd. v. DCIT
293 ITR 43 · 2007 · High Court
264
citing judgments

Where an assessment order is merely a copy-paste of observations from an investigation wing's appraisal report without independent verification, it is not a valid basis for making additions to income.

Mumbai), DCIT v. Vipin Aggarwal
82 ITD 85 · 2002 · ITAT
237
citing judgments

Evidence corroborating entries of payments or loan/interest advancements found in seized material from a third party must specifically show the actual transfer of money from the third party to the recipient to be admissible.

Shri Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT
174 Taxmann 466 · 2008 · High Court
225
citing judgments

Liability cannot be fastened solely on the basis of a self-incriminating sworn statement made during a search, as such statements are not conclusive and require corroborative evidence.

Judgments on Section 292C

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir.-2, Surat vs. Shri Vasantrai Ambaram Modi, Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue ( in ITA nos

ITA 135/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.134 To 137/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Pravinchandra Dahyabhai Umriger, Surat. Bungalow No.01, Opp. Talao Street, Near Govindji Park, Umra, Surat-395007(Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabpu5216D The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Vasantrai Ambaram Modi, Surat. 504, D/1, Subham Residency, Pal, Surat- 395005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acrpm0852D The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Shankar Mulchand Uttamani, Surat. 1/3210-11, New Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahpu9028R The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Prabodhchandra Jayantilal Patel, Surat. 297, Hari Narar-3, Opp. Brc Gate, Udhna, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afvpp7466F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir., 2, Surat vs. Shri Pravinchandra Dahyabhai Umriger, Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue ( in ITA nos

ITA 134/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.134 To 137/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Pravinchandra Dahyabhai Umriger, Surat. Bungalow No.01, Opp. Talao Street, Near Govindji Park, Umra, Surat-395007(Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabpu5216D The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Vasantrai Ambaram Modi, Surat. 504, D/1, Subham Residency, Pal, Surat- 395005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acrpm0852D The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Shankar Mulchand Uttamani, Surat. 1/3210-11, New Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahpu9028R The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Prabodhchandra Jayantilal Patel, Surat. 297, Hari Narar-3, Opp. Brc Gate, Udhna, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afvpp7466F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

Girish B. Chaudhari, L/H. of Late Shri Bhagwat N Chaudhari, Jalgaon vs. Income-Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1131/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 1131/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Girish Chaudhari, The I.T.O. L/H Of Bhagwat Chaudari, Vs (Central)-1, 11, Swed Bindu, Shanti Nagar, Nashik. Yawal Road, Bhusawal, Jalgaon-425201. Pan No. Aalpc 0512 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Shri Devendra P Kulkarni– Ars Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe- Dr Date Of Hearing 22/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Pune, Appeal No.Pn/Cit(A)-12/825,826,827,828/2014-15 Dated 20/03/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition On Account Of Deemed Rental Of Rs. 3,09,357/- U/S 23(4) Of The Act. 1.1 The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Said Addition Of Rs. 3,09,357/- Was Not Justified Since No Incriminating Evidence Was Found Relating To This Issue In The Course Of Search & Hence, The Said Addition Ought To Have Been Deleted. 1.2 The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Various Properties In Respect Of Which The Deemed Rental Income Was Being Taxed Were Used For The Business Purposes By The Appellant & Therefore, There Was No Reason To Tax Deemed Rental Income U/S 23(4) Of The Act. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming An Addition Of Rs. 5,229/- On Account Of Undisclosed Rental Income Received By The Appellant

Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 23(4)

Dr. Shiv Gautam, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Cerntral Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 67/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 67/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2012-13 Dr. Shiv Gautam, Cuke D.C.I.T., 1, Gokul, Jacob Road, Civil Lines, Vs. Central Circle-1, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abopg 4893 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/03/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 28/05/2021 For The A.Y. 2012-13 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50 Lacs U/S 69 On Account Of Alleged Unaccounted Advances Given To Sh. Vikas Sharma On The Basis Of Blank Receipt Found In Search. 1.1 The Ld. Cit(A) Has Further Erred On Facts & In Law In Holding That Cancellation Receipt Filed During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Is A Fake Document & Afterthought.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69