Change of opinion on existing facts cannot justify reassessment without fresh definite information under income-tax law.

Reassessment under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 could not be sustained where the Income-tax Officer already had the relevant material and later relied only on the Tribunal's differing view of the same facts. The provision required definite fresh information leading to discovery of escaped income; a mere change of opinion on facts already within the officer's knowledge was insufficient. As no new material emerged after the original enquiry, reopening the assessment was invalid and the reference was answered against the Commissioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment could be initiated under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 on the basis of the Tribunal's decision and the material already available to the Income-tax Officer.

Analysis: The reassessment provision required definite information leading to discovery of escaped income, and not merely a different view on the same facts. The Income-tax Officer had already made enquiry and possessed the material showing the assessee's acquisition of property; no fresh information came to light later. The later adoption of the Tribunal's view amounted only to a change of opinion on the same facts, which could not justify reopening the assessment under Section 34.

Conclusion: Reassessment under Section 34 was not valid, and the question referred was answered against the Commissioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment cannot be founded on a mere change of opinion on facts already within the Income-tax Officer's knowledge; Section 34 requires fresh definite information that leads to discovery of escaped income.

---