Appellate-order information can justify reopening excess profits tax assessment, and section 10A applies once reassessment proceedings are pending.

Information contained in an appellate income-tax order, including a finding of partial partition, can constitute definite information for reopening excess profits tax assessment under section 15, because it is not a mere change of opinion by the officer but information from a superior authority. The absence of separate examination of alleged tax avoidance in the income-tax proceedings did not prevent further enquiry under the excess profits tax law. Proceedings under section 10A were also valid where notice under section 15 had already been ordered and was pending when section 10A action was taken; the same-day sequence did not defeat jurisdiction. The assessments were therefore lawfully reopened and adjusted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether there was definite information within the meaning of section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, enabling reopening of the excess profits tax assessment. (ii) Whether proceedings under section 10A of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, were validly initiated in the course of proceedings pending under section 15.

Issue (i): Whether there was definite information within the meaning of section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, enabling reopening of the excess profits tax assessment.

Analysis: The finding of partial partition recorded in the income-tax appellate proceedings supplied information to the Excess Profits Tax Officer. That information was not a mere change of opinion by the officer but arose from the order of the appellate authority. Information received from superior appellate orders is sufficient to found jurisdiction under a provision in pari materia with section 34(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The fact that the alleged motive of tax avoidance had not been separately examined in the income-tax proceedings did not matter, because the information of partial partition was enough to permit further enquiry under the excess profits tax law.

Conclusion: The existence of definite information was established and the reopening under section 15 was valid, in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether proceedings under section 10A of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, were validly initiated in the course of proceedings pending under section 15.

Analysis: Section 10A could be invoked only when proceedings for assessment or reassessment were already pending under section 15. The record showed that on the relevant date the officer first ordered notice under section 15 and thereafter notice under section 10A. The proceedings under section 15 were thus already initiated and pending when action under section 10A was taken. The simultaneous date of the notices did not defeat the jurisdiction, because the sequence of initiation was sufficient and a hypertechnical objection was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The proceedings under section 10A were validly started during pending section 15 proceedings, in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The excess profits tax assessments were lawfully reopened and adjusted, and both reference questions were answered for the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Information supplied by an appellate order can constitute definite information for reopening assessment, and a provision like section 10A may be invoked only after reassessment proceedings have been validly initiated and are pending.

---