Definite information requirement is necessary to reopen an assessment; absence of such information renders the reopening notice invalid.

Whether a reopening notice under Section 34 could be validly issued turns on whether the tax officer possessed "definite information" of escaped income when the later notice was served; anticipation of a future judicial ruling does not satisfy that statutory threshold. The court applied the amended statutory test requiring existing definite information before reopening and found that, because the authoritative judicial determination postdated the notice, the requisite information was absent. Consequently the notice dated 14 March 1940 was incompetent for want of definite information, and the appellate finding that the assessment could not be reopened was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice dated 14th March, 1940 served under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was incompetent by reason of an earlier notice dated 30th November, 1938 in respect of the identical item of escaped income having been issued, considered, adjudicated upon and ultimately dropped.

Analysis: The question turns on whether the Income-tax Officer possessed "definite information" within the meaning of Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, at the time the later notice was served. The statutory operation of Section 34 as amended in 1939 requires the officer to be in receipt of some definite information about escaped income before reopening an assessment. If the officer's knowledge merely anticipated a later judicial determination of the state of the law, the statutory threshold is not met. Here, on 14th March, 1940, the legal question whether the minor's share should be included in the father's assessment had not been authoritatively decided; the subsequent judicial decision on 15th September, 1941, would have constituted such definite information, but that decision postdated the notice in issue. Absent definitive information at the relevant time, the requirements of Section 34 to reopen the assessment were not satisfied. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's conclusion that the assessment could not be reopened on these grounds is accordingly supported by the statutory test.

Conclusion: The notice dated 14th March, 1940 under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was incompetent for want of "definite information" in the possession of the Income-tax Officer when it was served; the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessment could not be reopened.

---