The evasion or escape of income-tax must be discovered as a consequence of fresh price of definite information received by the Income-tax Officer and where the Income-tax Officer has already completed an assessment upon certain date he cannot use the same date for revising assessment under Section 34.

KHOSLA, J.

1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act. The following question has been referred for out decision :-

"Whether in the circumstance of the case the intimation as the figures received from the Income-tax Officer, Ahmedabad, could be termed a definite piece of information which the Income-tax Officer discovered so as to justify the issue of a notice under Section 34."

2. The matter arose in the following manner. The firm Tulsi Ram Sham Sundar is a firm dealing in cloth at Amritsar. They also own a business C. L. Nayyar & Sons which do business in yarn. This firm has interest in three the registered partnership firms (a) Tulsi Ram Karam Chand of Amritsar, (b) Tulsi Ram Chuni Lal of Bombay and (c) Tulsi Ram Kanhaya Lal of Ahmedabad. In making their returns for the income according during the year 1943-44 the firm declared the income from their cloth firm, Tulsi Ram Sham Sundar, at Rs. 34,061. The return also made mention of the fact that the firm had a share or interest in three other registered firms (the names of which have been mentioned above). The assessees share of the income in the firms (a) Tulsi Ram Karam Chand of Amritsar and (b) Tulsi Ram Chuni Lal of Bombay was declared and with respect to the third firm, Tulsi Ram Kanhaya Lal of Ahmedabad the assessee said that they had 7/16th share in the business but the exact figure of their share was not available and should be contained from the Income-tax Officer proceeded to maker his assessment. He added up the income of the two cloth business with the Share of the income as declared in the other two registered partnership firms. He, however, omitted or forgot to take into consideration the income from the Ahmedabad firm, although it appears that he did make an enquiry from the Income-tax Officer, Ahmedabad, as to what the assessees share of the income of that firm was. The assessment was made and demand orders were sent. Sub-sequently the query made from the Income-tax Officer of Ahmedabad brought a reply and the Income-tax Officer, Amritsar, realised that he had forgotten to take this figure consideration, while assessing the income-tax due. He took the view that this part of the assessees income fad escaped assessment and could be revised by having recourse to proceedings under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act. He according sent a notice to the assessees under Section 34 and revised the original assessment by adding the Ahmedabad income. The assessees appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but the appeal was dismissed. The assesses objection was that their case was not covered by the provisions of Section 34 inasmuch as the Income-tax officer had not discovered the evasion in consequence of any definite price of information received by hum after the original assessment was completed. This contention was rejected by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on appeal but on application under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act the Tribunal agreed to refer the question noted above for our decision.

3. The contention of Mr. Gosian, who appeared on behalf of the assessees, is that in their original returns the assessees revealed the fact that they had a share in the Ahmedabad firm. They even stated that the extend of their share was 7/16th. The Income-tax Officer was therefore in full possession of the relevant facts and all he had to do was make an equity from the Income-tax Office either did not write to Ahmedabad in time or did not wait for a reply from there and proceeded to make his assessment without taking into consideration to Ahmedabad income. He made a complete assessment which could not be revised unless the case was covered by Section 34. The subsequent receipts of a reply form Ahmedabad could not be said to amount to a definite piece of information as the figures received by him were not in the nature of a piece of new or fresh information which came in possession of the Inc