AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.—The assessees are the executors of the will of one M. Seshachalam Naidu, who died in the year 1936. By
his will he directed that his executors should pay to his widow monthly the sum of Rs. 50 for her own use and a further sum of Rs. 1,000 each
month for the maintenance of herself and her children. In accordance with these directions, the executors paid to the widow Rs. 12,156 in the year
of account. The Income Tax Officer assessed the executors on the footing that the estate belonged to a joint Hindu family, but on appeal the
Appellate, Assistant Commissioner said that the status was that of an "" Association of Individuals,"" and directed the Income Tax Officer to make
the assessment on this basis. The Income Tax Officer did so and again allowed the deduction of the Rs. 12,156.. In the following year, another
Income Tax Officer decided that his predecessor was wrong in allowing the deduction of Rs. 12,156 and decided to re-open the assessment u/s
34 of the Indian Income Tax Act. Consequently he issued a notice to the assessee and in due course levied the tax on this amount. The assessee
appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who agreed with the Income Tax Officer. On a further appeal, the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal held that the
Income Tax Officer had power to re-open the assessment u/s 34 and that the tax was chargeable on the Rs. 12,156. At the instance of the
assessee, the Tribunal has, u/s 66(1) of the Act, referred to this Court, the following-questions:
(1) Whether in the circumstances of the case, the assessment proceedings were validly initiated u/s 34; and
(2) Whether in the circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 12,156 was rightly included in the assessment.
Section 34 was substantially amended in 1939. The relevant portion of the old section read as follows:
If for any reason income, profits or gains chargeable to Income Tax has escaped assessment in any year, or has been assessed at too low a rate,
the Income Tax Officer may, at any time within one year of the end of that year, serve on the person liable to pay tax on such income, profits or
gains, or, in the case of a company, on the principal officer thereof, a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a
notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 22, and may proceed to assess or re-assess such income, profits or gains, and the provisions of this Act
shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that sub-section.
The new section says:
If in consequence of definite information which has come into his possession, the Income Tax Officer discovers that income, profits or gains
chrgeable to ineome-tax have escaped assessment in any year, or have been under-assessed, or have been asseessed at too low a rate, or have
been the subject of excessive relief under this Act, the Income Tax Officer may, in any case in which he has reasor to believe that the assessee has
concealed the particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inacccurate particulars thereof, at any time within eight years, and in any other case
at any time within four years, of the end of that year serve on the person liable to tax on such income, profits or gains, or, in the case of a company,
on the principal officer thereof, a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under Sub-section 2 of Section
22 and may proceed to assess or re-assess such income, profits or gains, and the provisions of this Act shall, so"" far as may be, apply accordingly
as if the notice were a notice issued under that sub-section.
By reason of the amendment of the section, the Income Tax Officer is not entitled, to re-open the assessment merely because he changes his mind
on a question of law. Before he can act under the section, he must receive definite information from which it is apparent that income in the previous
year has escaped assessment. The effect of the amendment was discussed by the Bombay High Court in a recent case The Commissioner of
Income Tax, Bombay v. Sir Mohamed Tousuf ILR (1944) Bom. 230. A Division Bench there held that Section 34 as amended does not
empower the Income Tax Officer to re-open an assessment on the ground that income has escaped assessment or has been under-assessed owing
to a mistake of law or misconstruction of a provision, of law by the Income Tax Officer. The word "" discovers "" implies something more than a
mere change of opinion on the same facts. It was said that the expression "" definite information "" denotes that there must be some information as to
a fact; but it was recognised that there might be border line cases and the fact might be as to the state of the law, for instance, that a case had been
overruled, or that a statute had been passed which had not been brought to the attention of the Income Tax Officer. But there must be some
information which leads the Income Tax Officer to discover that income has escaped assessment, or been under-assessed. A similar opinion has
been expressed by the Patna High Court in FAZAL DHALA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax, BIHAR AND ORISSA., .
It is very desirable to avoid conflict on such a question and we will follow the judgment of the Bombay High Court. In view of the opening
words of the amended section "" in consequence of definite information which has come into his possession,"" it is obvious that the word "" discovers
which follows means something more than ""has reason to believe "" or "" satisfies himself"" and consequently we do not regard the English decisions
on the meaning of the word "" discovers "" as being in point.
We wish to make it clear that in fallowing the Bombay decision we do not imply that the "" definite information "" must relate to a pure question of
fact. It is impossible to lay down a rule to cover all cases in which the section can be invoked. The application of the section must depend on the
particular circumstances of the case, but definite information with regard to the state of the law will bring the section into operation. We are
convinced that in this case the Income Tax Officer was not justified in re-opening the assessment because he disagreed with his predecessor''s
interpretation of the law.
The answer which we give on the first question is that the assessment proceedings were not validly initiated u/s 34. In these circumstances it is
unnecessary to answer the second question.
The assessee is entitled to his costs which we fix at Rs. 250., He is also entitled to the refund of the reference fee of Rs. 100.