Reassessment jurisdiction and written down value computation turn on post-assessment information and binding precedent in income tax law.

Reassessment under section 147(b) requires post-assessment information that gives the Income-tax Officer reason to believe income escaped assessment; a mere omission, oversight, or change of view is insufficient. On that basis, the reassessment for assessment year 1962-63 was invalid for want of jurisdiction. For assessment year 1963-64, the computation of written down value had to follow binding precedent holding that consumers' contributions made before 1 January 1961 were to be excluded, so the deduction issue was resolved against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment for the assessment year 1962-63 under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was valid in law. (ii) Whether, for computing the written down value for the assessment year 1963-64, consumers' contributions made prior to 1 January 1961 were liable to be deducted.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment for the assessment year 1962-63 under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was valid in law.

Analysis: Reopening under clause (b) requires that the Income-tax Officer possess information obtained after the original assessment, on the basis of which he has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Mere omission, oversight, or a later realisation that a point was not considered does not by itself satisfy the statutory condition. The reassessment order did not identify any post-assessment information or any basis showing how the requisite belief was formed, and the appellate authorities could not supply that missing jurisdictional foundation by conjecture.

Conclusion: The reassessment under section 147(b) for the assessment year 1962-63 was invalid and is held against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether, for computing the written down value for the assessment year 1963-64, consumers' contributions made prior to 1 January 1961 were liable to be deducted.

Analysis: For the later assessment year, the controversy was covered by binding authority of the court, which had already held that consumers' contributions were to be excluded while computing written down value under the applicable provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee's contention could not prevail in view of that precedent.

Conclusion: The consumers' contributions made prior to 1 January 1961 were deductible for computing written down value for the assessment year 1963-64, and the answer is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment for one year failed for want of jurisdiction, while the deduction issue for the subsequent year was decided in accordance with binding precedent.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment under section 147(b) is permissible only where the recorded material shows post-assessment information giving rise to the requisite belief of escapement of income, and not on a mere change of opinion or unsubstantiated inference; the computation of written down value must also follow the governing statutory interpretation already settled by binding precedent.

---