Reasonable interpretation of prior Tribunal order can justify reassessment where it supplies information suggesting escaped income.

A reasonable interpretation of an earlier Tribunal order can constitute "information" for reopening an assessment under section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, if it is capable of supporting a belief that income had escaped assessment or been under-assessed. The Income-tax Officer was therefore entitled to act on a construction of the Tribunal's order indicating that no goodwill was sold and that the sale consideration represented the fair market value of the buses. The existence of another possible view, or the assessee's later explanation, did not defeat jurisdiction once that reasonable basis existed. Reopening was held valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 on the basis of the Tribunal's earlier order.

Analysis: The earlier order of the Tribunal was reasonably capable of being understood as recording that no goodwill was sold and that the entire sale consideration represented the fair market value of the buses. Such an interpretation could constitute information for the purpose of section 34(1)(b), because it was capable of giving rise to a reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment or been assessed too low. The existence of another possible view, or the assessee's later explanation about route value, did not destroy the jurisdiction to reopen once the Income-tax Officer acted on a reasonable construction of the Tribunal's order.

Conclusion: The reopening under section 34(1)(b) was valid and the Tribunal was wrong in holding otherwise.

Ratio Decidendi: A reasonable interpretation of a judicial or quasi-judicial order, if capable of constituting information leading to a belief of escapement or under-assessment, is sufficient to confer jurisdiction to reopen an assessment under section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

---