Reassessment under section 34 was upheld where later information revealed foreign income that could not be assessed earlier.

Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 could be invoked where post-assessment definite information disclosed foreign income that could not reasonably have been brought to tax earlier because, during the wartime assessment proceedings, neither the assessee nor the revenue had reliable information about the existence or continuance of the foreign businesses. The provision was not barred as a case of deliberately deferred or piecemeal assessment, since the earlier omission arose from lack of real data rather than an administrative choice to postpone quantification. Acquiescence or waiver could not confer jurisdiction, but on these facts the reassessment was valid and the reference was answered against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 could be validly invoked to assess foreign income for the assessment year 1942-43 on the basis of definite information obtained after the termination of hostilities, notwithstanding the plea that the matter amounted to a deferred or piecemeal assessment.

Analysis: The original assessment did not include the foreign business income because neither the assessee nor the assessing authority had any reliable information, during the wartime assessment proceedings, as to whether the foreign businesses were still in existence or whether any income had accrued. The inability to make the assessment earlier was not due to an administrative choice to defer quantification of known income, but to the absence of any real data caused by wartime conditions and the disruption of communication. After the war, new information came to light and disclosed income that could not have been assessed in the original proceedings. The principle that section 34 cannot be used to complete a deliberately deferred assessment did not apply on these facts. Acquiescence or waiver could not confer jurisdiction if section 34 otherwise applied.

Conclusion: Section 34 was validly applied, and the answer to the referred question was in the affirmative, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference was disposed of by upholding the reassessment under section 34, with costs awarded against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 is attracted where post-assessment definite information reveals income that could not reasonably have been assessed earlier because the existence or continuance of the source itself was unknown.

---