Definite information required for reassessment; stray Tribunal observations in third-party proceedings cannot justify reopening.

Section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940 could be invoked only on definite information already in the authority's possession showing escaped assessment. Stray observations made by the Tribunal in proceedings concerning other companies did not constitute such information because they were not directed against the assessee and were not findings on its assessment. The jurisdictional condition for reopening was therefore absent, so the reassessment notices were invalid and quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment notices issued under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940 were valid when they were founded only on observations made by the Tribunal in proceedings to which the petitioner was not a party, and whether such observations could amount to definite information enabling action under the provision.

Analysis: Section 15 could be invoked only if the authority had in its possession definite information leading to the discovery that profits chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The material relied upon by the authority consisted solely of stray observations made by the Tribunal while disposing of appeals concerning other companies. Those observations were not directed against the petitioner, were not findings on its assessment, and did not furnish the requisite definite information. The condition precedent for reopening assessment was therefore absent, and the exercise of jurisdiction to issue the notices was misconceived.

Conclusion: The notices under section 15 were invalid and were quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment action could not be sustained because the statutory requirement of definite information was not satisfied, and the writ petition succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment under section 15 can be initiated only on definite information actually available to the authority, and remarks or incidental observations in proceedings concerning third parties do not satisfy that jurisdictional condition.

---