Reassessment for escaped income upheld where later discovery showed omitted partnership-linked income was taxable in the father's assessment.

Reassessment under section 34(1)(b) was sustained where the Income-tax Officer later obtained information that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment in the father's hands because his minor son's share from a partnership had not been included under section 16(3)(a)(ii). The Court held that such information may arise from material already in the assessment record if its tax significance is discovered only after the original assessment, and that this is sufficient to invoke reopening when the case is not one of mere change of opinion. The assessee's objection that clause (a) alone applied was rejected, and the reassessments were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessments for the relevant assessment years were valid under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the income of a minor son, admitted to the benefits of a partnership in which the father was a partner, had escaped assessment in the father's hands. The Court held that section 34(1)(b) was attracted where, on discovery of an omission in the original assessment, the Income-tax Officer obtained information that part of the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The relevant information under clause (b) was not merely the fact of the partnership or the minor's admission to its benefits, but the later realization that the father's assessable income had not included the amount mandated by section 16(3)(a)(ii). The Court further held that the fact that the material could be gathered from the original records did not prevent it from being "information" for section 34(1)(b). On the facts, the original assessment had not in fact considered this income, and the case was therefore distinguishable from one of mere change of opinion. The Court did not accept the assessee's objection that clause (a) alone could apply.

Conclusion: Reopening under section 34(1)(b) was valid, and the reassessments were upheld against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Information revealing that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, even if derived from the assessment record itself and discovered after the original assessment, is sufficient to sustain reassessment under section 34(1)(b) where the case is not one of mere change of opinion.

---