https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186466 Section 34 reopening required definite information leading to a genuine discovery of escaped assessment; it could not rest on a mere change of opinion where the Income-tax Officer had already formed his own view that forest income was taxable. The same principle applied to the later year: where assessment was deliberately left tentative and tax quantification consciously postponed, section 34 could not be used to complete an assessment that had been intentionally deferred. Prior treatment of the income as exempt also did not, by itself, validate reopening. en-us Thu, 21 Jul 1955 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Sep 2016 18:07:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186466 Section 34 reopening required definite information leading to a genuine discovery of escaped assessment; it could not rest on a mere change of opinion where the Income-tax Officer had already formed his own view that forest income was taxable. The same principle applied to the later year: where assessment was deliberately left tentative and tax quantification consciously postponed, section 34 could not be used to complete an assessment that had been intentionally deferred. Prior treatment of the income as exempt also did not, by itself, validate reopening. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 21 Jul 1955 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186466