Sub-section (1) applies where an assessee has appeared in any proceeding, or co-operated in any inquiry relating to an assessment or reassessment. In that case any notice under the Act required to be served on him is deemed to have been duly served on him in time as per the provisions of the Act, and he is precluded from objecting in any proceeding or inquiry under the Act that the notice was not served on him, was not served in time, or was served in an improper manner.
Sub-section (2) removes that bar where the assessee has raised such an objection before the completion of the assessment or reassessment.
Why it is there
A defect in service is a real objection, but only if it actually prejudiced the assessee; someone who took part in the proceedings has had the notice in substance. The section therefore treats participation as curing the defect, while sub-section (2) preserves the objection for the person who raised it while the assessment was still going on rather than keeping it in reserve for appeal.
Who it applies to
An assessee who has appeared in a proceeding or co-operated in an inquiry relating to an assessment or reassessment
An assessee who has raised an objection about service before completion of the assessment or reassessment
The income-tax authority relying on the deemed service
What this means in practice
The deeming covers all three complaints together — non-service, late service and improper service — so a taxpayer who participates cannot later distinguish between them. Timing decides the case: the objection survives only if raised before completion of the assessment or reassessment. The section cures service, not the notice itself; a ground that the notice was without jurisdiction is untouched by it.
An example
Illustrative only, and invented for this page. The figures are chosen to show the rule biting, not taken from any real matter.
An assessee who says he never received the notice nevertheless attends the hearings, files submissions and answers queries, and raises the service point only in his appeal. Sub-section (1) deems the notice duly served in time and shuts out the objection. Had he objected in writing before the assessment was completed, sub-section (2) would have kept the point alive.
Where you meet this section
You meet this section in an assessment or appellate order as the answer to a plea that a notice was never served or was served late, and it is why a service objection must be recorded before the assessment or reassessment is completed rather than saved for appeal.
The words themselves
it shall be deemed that any notice under this Act, which is required to be served upon him, has been duly served upon him in time as per the provisions of this Act
Section 523(1), Income-tax Act, 2025.
The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply where the assessee has raised such objection before the completion of such assessment or reassessment.
Section 523(2), Income-tax Act, 2025.
What people get wrong
Raising the service objection for the first time in appeal. Sub-section (2) preserves it only where it was raised before completion of the assessment or reassessment.
Assuming only formal appearance counts. Sub-section (1) applies where the assessee has appeared in any proceeding or co-operated in any inquiry.
Thinking improper service is a separate ground that survives. Sub-section (1) covers non-service, late service and improper service alike.
Treating the section as validating the notice itself. It deems the notice duly served in time; it does not answer objections to its validity on other grounds.
What this replaced
The correspondence is the Income Tax Department’s own, from its comparison utility for the 1961 and 2025 Acts. A renumbering is the easy half; whether the words changed is the half that decides cases.
292BB - Notice deemed to be valid in certain circumstances
Read this before you rely on it. Every decision below was decided under the Income-tax Act, 1961. It appears here because it is tagged to a 1961 provision that the department’s own mapping carries to section 523. That is an inference we have drawn, not a holding on the new section: where the words changed in the move, the reasoning may not survive. Treat this as the place to start looking, not as authority on the 2025 Act.
CIT v Laxman Das KhandelwalSupreme CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.292BB No s.143(2) notice was issued at all. Does s.292BB save the assessment?
Asha Dubey v Union of IndiaHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.292BB They issued a 148 notice in my late husband's name. Can they just issue a fresh one now?
Meet Lalwani v ITOHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.292BB I filed the death certificate and they still issued the 148 notice in my mother's name. Is it valid?
PCIT v Jai Shiv Shankar TradersHigh Courttagged s.292BB If the assessee says its original return should be treated as the return in response to s.148, must the Assessing Officer still issue a fresh…
ACIT v JD Ispat Pvt LtdITATHelps taxpayertagged s.292BB Same point, at Tribunal level: can taking part in a reassessment cure a missing s.143(2) notice?
What this page does not tell you. It does not reproduce the section. Everything above was written from the section’s own text as the Income Tax Department publishes it — the text is here, and nothing here is advice on your facts. Where a figure matters, read the sub-section it comes from.
