Judgment

GROVER, J.:- This is an appeal from a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in an Income-tax Reference. Originally it has been brought by certificate but the same had to be revoked (i.e. C. A. 1685 of 1968) as no reasons had been given in the order granting the certificate. The Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal moved this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution for special leave and the same has been granted.. This appeal (C. A. 1080 of 1971) will be disposed of by this judgment and for doing so we shall refer to the printed record in C. A. 1685 of 1968.

2. The assessee was H. K. Shah who is now dead and is represented by the present respondents. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1955-56 the previous year being that ending on March 31, 1955. H. K. Shah deceased, hereinafter referred to as the "assessee". Had a share of profit from the Mysore Premier Metal Factory Madras of which he was a partner. He was also carrying on other business and was being assessed at Calcutta. In his return which he filed before the Income-tax Officer at Calcutta he specifically disclosed his share in the income of the Madras firm. The profit allocation report of the share of profit from the Madras firm had been received in the office of the Income-tax Officer in September 1955 and an order was recorded on the order sheet of the proceedings to that effect. The assessment for the year in question was completed some time in November 1958. The Income-tax Officer failed to include in the total income the share of profit from the Madras firm. On March, 22, 1960 the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 34 (1) (b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter called the "Act", calling upon the assessee to show cause why the profits from the Madras firm which had escaped assessment should not be included in the income. The assessee wrote a letter saying that he had fully disclosed the details of his income from all sources in his original return and nothing had escaped assessment. In fact he had indicated that he had a share in the profits of the Madras firm and was also entitled to interest on the capital invested therein. The Income-tax Officer, however, completed the assessment for the aforesaid year as also the subsequent assessment year in which also the share of the income from the Madras firm had not been included. The assessee went up in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which was allowed on the ground that the Income-tax Officer had no additional information either externally or internally which came into his possession subsequent to the making of the assessment to justify the action taken under Section 34 (1) (b). The Revenue appealed to the Appellate Tribunal which reversed the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in respect of the assessment year 1955-56. The view of the Tribunal was that the information on the record in respect of the share of profit assessable to tax had escaped the notice of the Income-tax Officer and therefore he was justified in taking action under Section 34 (1) (b). Two questions were referred for the opinion of the High Court but we are only concerned with the first question which is as follows:

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the action under Section 34 (1) (b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was legal and valid?"

The High Court was of the opinion that there may be information existing on the record or brought to the notice which does not become informative at the first sight and requires further investigation or consideration. In such cases the realisation of the effect of the information subsequently may give to the Income-tax Officer the jurisdiction to start proceedings under Section 34 (1) (b) but the mere fact that the Income-tax Officer changes his opinion subsequently or the fact that he fails to notice a palpable or glaring matter earlier should not be treated as additional informatio