1. A relevant judicial decision, when it is delivered, certainly constitutes valid information. 2. Once an assessment is reopened, the entire assessment is at large.

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) UNDER Section 256 (1) of the I. T. Act, 1961, this reference has been made for the year 1960-61. It appears that on the 25th January, 1962, the assessee wrote a letter to the assessing ITO explaining therein, according to the assessee, the management charges paid by the assessee to the parent company in London. On the 5th March, 1962, the assessee-company by a letter replied to the query made by the ITO at the time of the original assessment for furnishing details regarding the various items including the London office management expenses. The company in the said letter referred to its earlier letter dated 25th January, 1962, which we have mentioned hereinbefore. On the 17th March, 1962, the original assessment was made by one Sri G. P. Gupta, who was, at that time, the ITO and in the said order the total income computed was Rs. 3,62,36,092. Subsequently, the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Gotan Lime Syndicate [1964] 51 ITR 533, a decision to which we will presently refer in detail, held that the sum paid, in that case, by the assessee every year was in consideration of royalty and the same expenditure, was held to be a capital expenditure for acquiring the asset or advantage for the enduring benefit of the assessee's business. On the 13th February, 1964, the ITO rectified the original assessment and computed the income at Rs. 3,63,97,836. On the 15th December, 1964, the ITO issued a notice under Section 147 (b) of the I. T. Act, 1961, disallowing a sum of Rs. 14,10,107, being the amount of royalty on crude oil and gas claimed in the original assessment and allowed in the original assessment as a business expenditure. A notice was issued thereafter under Section 147 (b) of the I. T. Act, 1961, in consequence of an alleged information which was said to be contained in the decision of the Rajasthan High Court referred to hereinbefore. We must observe that the case proceeded up to the Tribunal on the basis of the decision of the Rajasthan High Court that the ITO had obtained information that the royalty allowed as deduction was not to be allowed as a revenue deduction in computing the income of the assessee. But during the hearing of the reference before us, learned advocate for the revenue sought to urge that the ' real information was contained in the order of the ITO, viz. , that as a result of the decision of the Rajasthan High Court, the I. T. Dept. had called for the records for the assessment year 1963-64 and, thereafter, the deed for payment of royalty was examined in detail, which deed was not referred to in the original assessment for the year 1960-61, with which we are concerned. As a result of the examination of the same, the ITO came to the conclusion that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment. But we must point out that before the Tribunal as well as b. efore the AAC, the only basis upon which the case proceeded was that the decision of the Rajasthan High Court referred to hereinbefore, constituted information and as such Section 147 (b) of the I. T. Act, 1961, was attracted. The fact that as a result of that decision as for royalty, which was examined for the year 1963-64, was considered also and this constituted information was not canvassed before the authorities below. Therefore, we must proceed to examine on the assumption that the information upon which the ITO sought to reopen the assessment was the decision of the Rajasthan High Court, as mentioned hereinbefore. On the 25th January, 1965, the work study made by the Burma Oil Co. , a parent company, in respect of the accounting year 1962-63 showed that the London office management expenses for the said two years, 1962 and 1963, were 1,10,000. On the 22nd November, 1965, the I TO made the reassessment under Section 23 (3) read with Section 147 (b) of the I. T. Act, 1961, overruling the objection that there was no fresh information in consequence of which the ITO could have assumed jurisdiction under Sectio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document