Change of opinion cannot justify reopening; post-amendment dependant expenses were includible in the individual assessment.

Reassessment under a provision analogous to section 16(b) cannot be sustained on a mere change of opinion where the assessing officer already knew the material facts, so the reopening was invalid. Expenditure incurred by a Hindu undivided family for the assessee's wife and minor children was not taxable in the assessee's individual assessments for the earlier years because it was incurred in discharge of the family's own maintenance obligation, not the assessee's personal obligation. After the 1959 amendment, however, a spouse and minor child are dependants for expenditure-tax purposes regardless of actual dependence, so expenditure incurred by them from their own property was includible in the assessee's post-partition assessment.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the reopening of the individual assessments under section 16(b) of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957 was valid; (ii) whether expenditure incurred by the Hindu undivided family for the assessee's wife and minor children was includible in the assessee's individual assessments for 1959-60 and 1960-61; and (iii) whether expenditure incurred by the wife and minor children after partition was includible in the assessee's individual assessment for 1961-62.

Issue (i): whether the reopening of the individual assessments under section 16(b) of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957 was valid.

Analysis: The same assessing officer had already considered the relevant expenditure in the assessments of the Hindu undivided family. The later letter from the assessee did not supply fresh information; it merely sought a different tax treatment on the same material. Reassessment under section 16(b) cannot rest on a mere change of opinion where the officer was already aware of the facts.

Conclusion: The reopening was not valid and is against the revenue.

Issue (ii): whether expenditure incurred by the Hindu undivided family for the assessee's wife and minor children was includible in the assessee's individual assessments for 1959-60 and 1960-61.

Analysis: The Hindu undivided family had its own independent obligation to maintain its members, while the assessee also had a personal obligation. The expenditure incurred by the family was primarily in discharge of the family's own obligation and could not be treated as expenditure incurred in respect of the assessee's personal obligation so as to attract section 4(i). The same expenditure could not be brought to tax in the assessee's hands on that basis.

Conclusion: The expenditure was not includible in the assessee's individual assessments and is against the revenue.

Issue (iii): whether expenditure incurred by the wife and minor children after partition was includible in the assessee's individual assessment for 1961-62.

Analysis: After the amendment made by the Finance Act, 1959, the spouse and minor child of an individual fall within the definition of dependant irrespective of actual dependence for support and maintenance. Expenditure incurred by dependants from their own property is therefore treated as expenditure incurred by persons other than the assessee on the personal requirements of dependants under section 4(i).

Conclusion: The expenditure was includible in the assessee's individual assessment and is in favour of the revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered partly in favour of the assessee and partly in favour of the revenue, with the reopening and pre-partition inclusion disallowed and the post-partition inclusion upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment under a provision analogous to section 16(b) cannot be sustained on a mere change of opinion when the material facts were already before the assessing authority, and after the 1959 amendment a spouse or minor child is a dependant for expenditure-tax purposes irrespective of actual dependence.

---