Ramaswami and Sinha, JJ.:— In this case assessment was made upon the assessee Mahasukhram Madanlal under section 23(4) of the Income-tax Act since the assessee failed to submit returns: The assessment year was 1943-1944 and the corresponding accounting year was 1998-1999 Samvat. Under section 23(4) of the Act the Income-tax Officer made an estimate of the income of the assessee to the best of his judgment. The turnover of the assessee was estimated to be Rs. 2,00,000 and the net income was assessed at Rs. 18,000. For the succeeding assessment year 1944-1945 the assessee submitted his books and also, filed returns but the books relating to the Samvat year 1998-1999 were not produced on the allegation that they were lost. For the assessment year 1944-1945 the Income-tax Officer made assessment on the 27th of February 1946 under section 23(3) of the Act. In the account books which were produced by the assessee the Income-tax Officer found two set of accounts one in the name of Ramnivas Mahasukhram and another in the name of Ganeshnarain Jodhraj. These two accounts showed a debit balance of Rs. 431 at the end of the Samvat year 1997-1998. The Income-tax Officer further notice that these two accounts together showed a credit balance of Rs. 52,904 at the commencement of the Samvat year 1999-2000. In view of this increase in the two accounts the Income-tax Officer started a proceeding under section 34 of the Act against the assessee on the 9th of September 1946. After considering the explanation submitted by the assessee the Income-tax Officer held that a sum of Rs. 52,000 should be added to the taxable income of the assessee for the assessment year 1943-1944. Against the order of the Income-tax Officer an appeal was taken by the assessee to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appeal was allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who held in, the first place that there was no definite information before the Income-tax Officer upon which he was competent to start the proceeding under section 34 against the assessee. In the second place, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that, even if the proceeding under section 34 had been validly started the explanation offered by the assessee should have been accepted and there was no justification for holding that the amount of Rs. 52,000 should be taxed under section 34 of the Act. The Income-tax Department took an appeal from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner committed an error of law in holding that section 34 proceeding was not validly started. As regards the quantum of assessment the Appellate Tribunal took the view that the case should be remanded to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for considering the explanation of the assessee and finding what should be the amount which should be actually assessed under section 34 of the Act.

At the instance of the assessee the High Court has required the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the following question of law:—

“Whether in the circumstances of the case notice under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act was validly issued?”

Mr. Dutt who appeared on behalf of the assessee commenced his argument by stating that there was no definite information before the Income-tax Officer in order to justify a proceeding under section 34 of the Act. It appears from the statement of the case and also from the order of the Appellate Tribunal that in course of assessment proceeding for the year 1944-1945 the Income-tax Officer discovered two set of accounts which, were produced on behalf of the assessee, one in the name of Ramnivas Mahasukhram and another in the name of Ganeshnaram Jodhraj. Both these accounts snowed at the end of the Samvat year 1997-1998 a debit balance of Rs. 431. For Samvat year 1999-2000 the two Accounts combined showed a credit balance of Rs. 52,904. In view of this remarkable increase in the accounts of these two firms the Income-tax Officer considered that a proceeding under, section 34; should be initiated. Mr. Dutt referred, in this connection to the, order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who has analysed the figures appearing in the balance-sheet of the two firms, Ramnivas Mahasukhram and Ganeshnarain Jodhraj. The argument of the counsel was that the asses see had submitted, explanation with respect to the increase of the balance before the authorities. Out of the total amount of Rs. 52,904 a sum of Rs. 22,628 is attributed to Ramnivas Mahasukhram and the balance of Rs. 30,276 is attributed to Ganeshnarain Jodhraj. The explanation of the assessee is that the amount of Rs. 22,628 contributed by Ramnivas Mahasukhram was made up of Rs. 1,769, which appears in the balance-sheet of the Samvat year 1997-1998 plus a sum of Rs. 14,000 (obtained from outside source, like sale of ornaments) plus a sum of Rs. 6,000 (which is profit of the business in the year 1998-1999). As regards the amount of Rs. 30,276 contributed by Ganeshnarain Jodhraj the explanation is that it was made up of Rs. 16,359 (shown as balance in the accounts for the Samvat year 1997-1998) plus a sum of Rs. 8,000 (which is profit from the business in the year 1998-1999) plus sum of Rs. 6,000 (obtained from pother source, like shop rent, etc.) It was argued by Mr. Dutt that this explanation was accepted, by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and therefore the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to proceed under section 34 of the Act. It is not necessary for us in this case to pronounce our opinion whether the explanation offered by the assessee; was rightly accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or not. That is, a matter which has got to be determined by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to whom the case has been sent on remand by the Appellate Tribunal. Even assuming though not deciding, in favour of the petitioner, that the explanation is correct, still there is no room for the argument, that the proceeding initiated under section 34 of the Act was not legally valid. The opening words of section 34 as it stood on the material date are:

“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, or have been under-assessed, or have been assessed at too low a rate, or have been the subject of excessive relief under this Act”.

Properly interpreted the section means that the Income-tax Officer has jurisdiction to initiate a proceeding under section 34 if upon information presented before him the Income-tax Officer believes in good faith that income has escaped assessment [see Mahaliram's case and a recent English case—Earl Beatty v. Inland Revenue Commissioner on a similiar provision of section 125 of the English Income-tax Act of 1918]. The jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to start a proceeding under section 34 cannot obviously depend upon the ultimate result of the proceeding. Even if it is found ultimately upon enquiry that there has been no-escapement of income, it is not a sound argument to advance that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to initiate the proceeding. The test of jurisdiction is not the ultimate result of the enquiry but the test is whether the Income-tax Officer entertained a bona fide belief upon the definite information presented before him that income has escaped. To give any other construction to section 34 would lead to a capricious method of determining jurisdiction. In our opinion the argument of Mr. Dutt on this point must be rejected as unsound.

Mr. Dutt argued in the next place that there is no evidence to show that before Mr. Patnaik the Income-tax Officer, issued notice under section 34 on the 9th of September 1946, there was definite information with respect to the increase of the credit balance of the two firms, Ramnivas Mahasukhram and Ganeshnarain Jodhraj, between the two relevant Samvat years. Mr. Dutt pointed out that separate order of Mr. Patnaik about the issue of notice under section 34 was not on the record of the case. The order-sheet however shows that there was separate order passed by Mr. Patnaik on the 9th of September 1946. The order of Mr. Patnaik runs as follows:—

“As per separate order of date issue notice under section 34”.

The argument advanced by Mr. Dutt is that in the absence of the original order passed under section 34 it must be held that there was no definite information before Mr. Patnaik and there was no warrant for starting a proceeding under section 34 of the Act against the assessee. In our opinion there is a fallacy lurking in this argument. It is true that the original order of Mr. Patnaik is missing but that would not necessarily lead to the inference that there was no definite information upon which Mr. Patnaik started the proceeding under section 34. The income-tax Officer has stated in the course of his order that action under section 34 was taken because it was detected in the assessment proceeding of 1944-1945 that there was a difference in the capital account of the two firms between the Samvat years. The relevant portion of the order of the Income-tax Officer runs as follows:—

“The relevent previous year” for the assessment year 1943-1944 is 1998-1999 Dewali year. In course of a recent assessment proceedings, it was detected that capital Accounts as on the close of 1997-1998 Dewali year and as on at the beginning of 1999-2000 Dewali year show a net increase (as against, an assessment of Rs. 18,000) of Rs. 53,335. On this definite information of under assessment action under section 34 was taken and assessee has filed a return declaring an approximate income of Rs. 16,000 with a claim of registration, under section 26A”.

The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has also proceeded on the basis that the definite information which was present before the Income-tax Officer before the issue of notice under section 34 was definite information as regards the difference of the capital accounts of the two firms between 1997-1998 Samvat and 1999-2000 Samvat. The material portion of the order of the Appellate-Assistant Commissioner states:

“From the assessment order it appears that the. Income-tax Officer made a comparison of the capital account balances of 1997-1998 Dewali year and of 1999-2000 Dewali year. The former he found to be a net debit balance of Rs. 431 and the latter he found to be a net credit balance of Rs. 52,904. From this he found that there was an increase in the capital of the firm by Rs. 431 plus Rs. 52,904=Rs. 53,335. This was the definite information received by the Income-tax Officer prior to issue of notice under section 34”.

There is a similar observation made in the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal. It is clear that though the original order of the Income-tax Officer was missing there were circumstances in the case which definitely pointed to the conclusion that before the issue of notice under section 34 the Income-tax Officer had present before his mind the difference in the capital accounts of the two firms between, the two relevant Samvat years. That was the definite information upon which the Income-tax Officer Mr. Patnaik started the proceeding under section 34 and it is difficult to accept the argument of Mr. Dutt that there is complete absence of evidence to show that there was definite information of that kind before the initiation of the proceeding under section 34.

For the reasons we have stated we think that the question referred to the High Court must be answered an favour of the Income-tax Department and against the assessee. The assessee must pay the cost of the reference: hearing fee Rs. 250.

K.D

Reference answered.