RAJAGOPALAN, J.

The assessee, Srimati Anantalakshmi Ammal, is the wife of S. S. Ramudu Ayyar. He was a partner of Sri. Kodandarama Spinning Mills, Madurai, with a substantial income of his won. In the assessment year 1943-44 the assessee submitted a return which showed an income of Rs. 40, 387 in the accounting year ending with 13th April, 1943, which, she declared, constituted her profit that year from the trade she had carried on in cotton. She claimed that she had carried on that business with the help of her brother Nageswara Ayyar as her clerk and power-of-attorney agent. He was also an employee of Sri Kothandarama Spinning Mills. The Income-tax Officer held on the facts placed before him that the business and the income belonged to Ramudu Ayyar and included it in his taxable income. The Appellate Tribunal, to which Ramudu Ayyar ultimately appealed, held on 3rd November, 1945, that the business and the income belonged only to Ramudu Ayyar's wife. The Income-tax Officer thereupon initiated proceedings under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and on 15th January, 1948, he assessed her to income-tax on her income for 1942-43, the main item of which was the profits of the business in cotton. The contention of the assessee, that the finding of the Tribunal in the appeal preferred by Ramudu Ayyar did not constitute definite information and that it did not lead to any discovery within the meaning of section 34 of the Act was overruled by the departmental authorities, and the Tribunal agree with them. On the application of the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal stated a case and referred to this Court under section 66(1) of the Act the following question :

"Whether the assessment proceedings under section 34 were validity initiated."The relevant portion of section 34 of the Act as it stood in the assessment year ran :

"If in consequence of definite information which has come into his possession the Income-tax Officer discovers that income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax have escaped assessment in any year ....... the Income-tax Officer may...... serve on the person liable to pay tax on such income, profits or gains......" *

Despite the frame of the question referred to this Court, the real question that arises for determination is, whether in the circumstances of this case the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 3rd November, 1945, constituted definite information as a consequence of which the Income-tax Officer discovered that the income of the assessee in 1942-43 had escaped assessment.

The Income-tax Officer recorded in his assessment order dated 15th January, 1948 :

"The assessee's income from trade in cotton amounting to Rs. 40, 387 was originally included in the total income of her husband S. S. Ramudu Ayyar and assessed in his hands. On appeal the Appellate Tribunal deleted the sum in included from the total income of her husband.

This definite information which has come into my possession subsequently had led to the discovery that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment in her hands. Hence notices under section 34 were issued to the assessee." *

Did this finding satisfy the requirements of section 34 as it stood in the relevant assessment year is the question.

Though what constitutes "definite information" within the meaning of section 34 must necessarily depend upon the circumstances of each case, and there can be no rule of universal application, in our opinion, the rule laid down by a Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Janab S. Khaderwalli Sahib governs this case, and the question referred to us must be answered in favour of the assessee.It was well-settled proposition of law to which Viswanatha Sastri, J., referred in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Janab S. Khaderwalli Sahib :

It is clear that a mere change of opinion based on the same facts and figures which were present to the mind of the Income-tax Officer at the time of the original assessment does not amount to discovery."

T