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

Millennium Associate, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 1(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7143/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarji Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 7143 To 7147/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2013-14) M/S Millennium Associates Dcit Cc – 1(1), 9Th Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, बिाम/ 211, Concorde Premises, Plot No. 66A Sector-11, Cbd-Belapur Old Cgo Annexe Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 614 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aapfm-3953-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Ms. Hiraj Sejal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Narendra Jangpangi– Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 27/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 06/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2009- 10 To 2013-14 Arises Out Of Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 12/09/2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A Of The Act. The Facts As Well Issues Are Substantially The Same In All The Years. For The Purpose Of Adjudication, Facts From Ay 2009-10 Are Taken. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Ms. Hiraj Sejal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Jangpangi– Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 292CSection 68