Definite information for reopening assessment must exist before notice; a later judicial ruling cannot validate the reopening

The Madras HC considered whether a notice to reopen an assessment for escaped income was valid where the Income-tax Officer lacked definite information about the state of the law when the notice was issued. Interpreting "definite information" under section 34 as amended in 1939, the court noted that some material must exist in the officer's possession to trigger the provision, and a later judicial decision may qualify as information on the law only if it has already been rendered. Because no such decision existed on the date of the notice, the officer had not obtained definite information and the assessment could not be reopened on that basis. The notice was held incompetent and the reopening invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether a notice issued under section 34 to reopen an assessment for escaped income was competent when, at the time of the notice, the Income-tax Officer did not have definite information as to the state of the law.

Analysis: The reference turned on the meaning of "definite information" in section 34 as amended in 1939. The existence of information sufficient to attract the provision depended on the circumstances of the case, but there had to be some material in the possession of the Income-tax Officer. A later judicial decision could amount to definite information as to the law, but on the date of the impugned notice no such decision had yet been rendered. The Income-tax Officer therefore could not be said to have obtained definite information before issuing the notice, and the assessment could not validly be reopened on that basis.

Conclusion: The notice under section 34 was incompetent and the reopening of the assessment was invalid, in favour of the assessee.

---