Meaning of "information" under reassessment law treated as a debatable question of law requiring reference to the High Court.

The expression "information" in section 17(b) of the Wealth-tax Act was construed by reference to section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, because the provisions were pari materia. Divergent High Court views on whether a mere change of opinion could amount to information made the reassessment question a debatable issue of law, not a matter of factual appreciation. Since the Tribunal's conclusion turned on that legal question, it was bound to refer the matter to the High Court. The appeals were allowed and the High Court's order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was bound to refer the question whether reassessment proceedings under section 17(b) of the Wealth-tax Act were validly initiated, in view of the meaning of "information" and the divergence of opinion among High Courts on the corresponding provision in the Income-tax Act.

Analysis: The expression "information" in section 17(b) of the Wealth-tax Act was construed in the light of section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, because the two provisions were pari materia. The Court noted that judicial opinion differed on whether a mere change of opinion could amount to information justifying reassessment, and that the High Courts had taken conflicting views on the scope of the word "information". Since the Tribunal's conclusion depended on that legal question, the issue was not one of mere factual appreciation but a debatable question of law arising from the Tribunal's order.

Conclusion: The Tribunal ought to have referred the question of law to the High Court. The appeals were therefore allowed and the order of the High Court was set aside.

---