Reopening on definite information: change of opinion alone cannot justify reassessment, and section 10A needs valid jurisdiction.

Reopening excess profits tax assessments under section 15 required definite information coming into the officer's possession that disclosed escaped profits; a mere change of opinion, or an appellate view based on the same material already before the assessing officer, was insufficient. The note also states that section 10A could be invoked only in valid reassessment proceedings, so if the section 15 reopening lacked jurisdiction, any order under section 10A could not stand. The operative principle is that reassessment must rest on new objective information, and ancillary powers cannot be used unless the reassessment itself is lawfully initiated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Excess Profits Tax Officer had definite information within the meaning of section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940 to reopen the excess profits tax assessments; (ii) Whether the Excess Profits Tax Officer was competent to invoke section 10A of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940 in the reassessment proceedings under section 15.

Issue (i): Whether the Excess Profits Tax Officer had definite information within the meaning of section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940 to reopen the excess profits tax assessments.

Analysis: Section 15 required definite information coming into the officer's possession, resulting in discovery that profits chargeable to excess profits tax had escaped assessment. The reopening was founded only on the appellate authority's view that the family had partitioned its movable property and that the Farrukhabad business belonged to a different firm. That was treated as a change of opinion based on material already before the assessing officer, not as new objective information about an escaped profit. A judicial or appellate conclusion on the same facts, without new material showing a previously unknown fact, was held insufficient to satisfy the statutory condition.

Conclusion: The condition precedent for reopening under section 15 was not satisfied. The question was answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Excess Profits Tax Officer was competent to invoke section 10A of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940 in the reassessment proceedings under section 15.

Analysis: Section 10A could be used only in proceedings where the officer was validly seized of jurisdiction in a pending assessment matter. Since the proceedings under section 15 were invalid for want of definite information, there was no lawful reassessment proceeding in which section 10A could be applied. The annulment of partition under section 10A, made in the course of the invalid reopening, therefore could not stand.

Conclusion: The officer had no competence to invoke section 10A in the purported reassessment proceedings. The question was answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference was disposed of by holding that the reassessment was without jurisdiction and the ancillary order under section 10A also failed, with costs awarded to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Reopening under section 15 required new definite information of an objective, previously unknown fact leading to discovery of escaped profits; a mere change of opinion or an appellate finding on the same material does not supply such information, and section 10A cannot be invoked unless the reassessment proceeding itself is validly pending.

---