1958 (10) TMI 2 - SC - Income Tax

Whether in the circumstances of the case the assessment order under section 34 of the Act of the interest on arrears of rent is legal ? Held that - In the result we hold that the Patna High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the decision of the Privy Council was information within the meaning of section 34(1)(b) and that the said decision justified the belief of the Income-tax Officer that part of the appellant s income had escaped assessment for the relevant year. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Construction of section 34(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Definition and scope of "information" under section 34(1)(b).
3. Meaning of "escaped assessment" under section 34(1)(b).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Construction of Section 34(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act:
The central issue in this appeal is the interpretation of section 34(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act. The relevant section allows the Income-tax Officer to reassess income if it has escaped assessment, provided the officer has "information" leading to this belief. The court examined whether the decision of the Privy Council could be considered as "information" under this section.

2. Definition and Scope of "Information" under Section 34(1)(b):
The appellant contended that "information" should be limited to facts and not include legal decisions. However, the court held that "information" includes both factual and legal information. The court stated, "We would accordingly hold that the word 'information' in section 34(1)(b) includes information as to the true and correct state of the law and so would cover information as to relevant judicial decisions." This interpretation was crucial as it allowed the Income-tax Officer to treat the Privy Council's decision as new information justifying reassessment.

3. Meaning of "Escaped Assessment" under Section 34(1)(b):
The appellant argued that "escaped assessment" should only apply to cases where income was not returned for assessment. The court rejected this narrow interpretation, stating, "Even in a case where a return has been submitted, if the Income-tax Officer erroneously fails to tax a part of assessable income, it is a case where the said part of the income has escaped assessment." The court emphasized that the term "escaped assessment" should be interpreted broadly to include cases where an error in the initial assessment leads to some income not being taxed.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that both conditions under section 34(1)(b)-possession of information and belief that income has escaped assessment-were met. The decision of the Privy Council was valid "information," and the Income-tax Officer was justified in reassessing the appellant's income. The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the revised assessment order.