Reassessment under Section 34 requires definite information; a mere change of opinion or new legal interpretation is not enough.

Section 34 reopening was permissible only where the Income-tax Officer acted on definite information leading to discovery of escaped or under-assessed income; a mere change of opinion, reappraisal of the same material, or substitution of one legal interpretation for another was insufficient. Definite information could relate to law as well as fact, but it had to go beyond a fresh view of material already considered. On that basis, the assessment proceedings were not validly initiated under Section 34.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment proceedings were validly initiated under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act.

Analysis: Section 34, as amended, requires that the Income-tax Officer must act in consequence of definite information coming into his possession and must discover that income has escaped assessment or has been under-assessed. The power to reopen cannot be exercised merely because the officer changes his mind on a question of law or substitutes a different interpretation for that of his predecessor. Definite information may relate to law as well as fact, but it must be more than a mere reappraisal of the same material.

Conclusion: The assessment proceedings were not validly initiated under Section 34.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment under Section 34 can be initiated only when the Income-tax Officer receives definite information leading to the discovery of escaped or under-assessed income, and not on a mere change of opinion or mistaken interpretation of law.

---