Assessment record error as information for reassessment, and life insurance loss carry-forward limited to annual valuation loss.

An obvious computational mistake shown in the assessment record itself can constitute information for reopening under section 34, and the existence of rectification powers does not bar reassessment where the statutory conditions are otherwise satisfied. The reopening was therefore upheld. In life insurance valuation, the carry-forward loss had to be confined to the annual loss computed for the relevant year under the applicable special rule, not the full cumulative actuarial deficiency for the quinquennial period. The assessee was accordingly entitled only to the yearly loss amount, and the larger aggregate deficiency could not be carried forward. Both issues were decided against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a mistake apparent on the face of the assessment record could constitute information for invoking reassessment under section 34. (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to carry forward the entire actuarial deficiency of Rs. 86,708 or only the yearly loss of Rs. 18,096 for set-off against the assessment years 1947-48 and 1948-49.

Issue (i): Whether a mistake apparent on the face of the assessment record could constitute information for invoking reassessment under section 34.

Analysis: The reassessment was founded on an obvious computational error in the original orders, where figures that ought to have been subtracted were added, resulting in under-assessment. The statutory requirement of information in possession under section 34 was held to be satisfied even where the information emerged from the assessment record itself, because the source of information could be the record and the officer could inform himself from it. The availability of rectification under section 35 did not exclude recourse to section 34 where the conditions of both provisions were otherwise met.

Conclusion: The reopening under section 34 was valid and in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to carry forward the entire actuarial deficiency of Rs. 86,708 or only the yearly loss of Rs. 18,096 for set-off against the assessment years 1947-48 and 1948-49.

Analysis: The actuarial deficiency of Rs. 86,708 represented the cumulative deficiency for the quinquennial period and not the assessable loss of a single year. Under the special computation applicable to life insurance business, assessment had to be made year by year on the basis of rule 2(a) or rule 2(b), whichever was more favourable to Revenue. The loss relevant for carry forward was therefore the annual average loss computed for 1945 under rule 2(b), namely Rs. 18,096, and not the entire accumulated deficiency for the whole inter-valuation period. The earlier assessments for the intervening years had attained finality and did not permit conversion of notional yearly profits into a retrospective loss for the whole period.

Conclusion: The refusal to carry forward Rs. 86,708 was valid and the allowable carry forward was only Rs. 18,096, in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: Both questions were answered against the assessee, affirming the validity of the reassessment and limiting the loss available for carry forward to the annual amount computed under the special insurance valuation rules.

Ratio Decidendi: An obvious mistake apparent from the assessment record itself can amount to information for section 34, and for life insurance business the carry forward loss must be confined to the loss computed for the relevant assessment year under the applicable yearly valuation rule, not the entire cumulative actuarial deficiency of the inter-valuation period.

---