ax Reference Case Nos 1 to 4 of 1973
Income Tax Reference under section 257 of Income Tax Act 1961 made by T T Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench C  in RA Nos
491 to 494 of 1971 72 ITA NOS
699219629 19631 of 1967 68
445 V section Desai Mrs A M Verma A N Haskar an3 J B Dadachanji for the appellant
T A Ramachandran and Miss A Subhashini for the respondent
Dr Devi Pal Ravinder Narain and J B Dadachanji for the Intervener
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by PATHAK J Can the view expressed by an internal audit party of the Income Tax Department on a point of law be regarded as  information  for the purpose of initiating proceedings under section 147b of the Income Tax Act 1961  opinion on the question has been divided among the High Courts and accordingly the present cases have been referred by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal under section 257 of the Act
The assessee Messrs Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society is a society registered under the Indian Companies Act
It is a professional association of newspapers established with the principal object of promoting the welfare and interest of all newspapers
The assessee owns a building in which a conference hall and rooms are let out on rent lo its members as well as to outsiders
Certain other services are also provided to the members
The income from that source was assessed to tax all along as income from business
It was so assessed for the years 1960 61 1961 62 1962 63 and 1963 64 also
The Income Tax Department includes an internal audit organisation whose function it is to examine income tax records and check mistakes made therein with a view ultimately to improve the quality of assessments
In the course of auditing the income tax records pertaining to the assessee for the assessment years 1960 61 to 1963 64 the internal audit party expressed the view that the money realised by the assessee on account of the occupation of its conference hall and rooms should not have been assessed as income from business
It said that an assessment should have been made under the head Income from property
The Income Tax Officer treated the contents of the report as information in his possession for the purpose of section 147b of the Income Tax Act
1961 and reassessed the income on that basis
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeals filed by the assessee holding inter alia that in law it could not be said that the Income Tax officer had any information in his possession enabling him to take action under section 147b
On appeal by the Revenue the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench noticed a conflict of judicial opinion on the question whether the internal audit 446 report could be treated as information for the purpose of section 147b
The Gujarat High Court in Kasturbhai Lalbhai vs R K Malhotra Income tax Officer Group Circle 111 Ahmedabad had held that an internal audit report could not be regarded as information while the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income tax vs H H Smt
Chand Kanwarji Alwar has expressed a contrary view
Following the view adopted by the Delhi High Court the Tribunal held that the Income Tax officer had jurisdiction to proceed under section 147b
The assessee applied for a reference and having regard to the difference between the High Courts on the point the Tribunal has considered it expedient to refer the following question of law directly to this Court Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income tax officer was legally justified in reopening the assessments under section 147 b for the years 1960 61 1961 62 1962 63 and 1963 64 on the basis of the view expressed by the Internal Audit party and received by him subsequent to the original assessment  Since then the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Kasturbhai Lalbhai s case supra has on appeal been reversed by this Court in R K Malhotra Income Tax Officer Group Circle 111 Ahmedabad vs Kasturbhai Lalbhai
It has been strenuously contended that the view taken by this Court calls for further consideration
Having regard to the dimensions of the controversy and the importance of the question we have been persuaded to take a fresh look at the point
An assessment proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding
It acquires finality on the assessment order being made
And the finality of such an order can be disturbed only in proceeding and within the confines provided by law
An appeal revision and rectification are proceedings in which the finality may be questioned
The assessment may also be reopened under section 147 of the Act
It is a proceeding for assessing income which has escaped assessment
Section 147 reads 147
If a the Income Tax officer has reason to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return under section 139 for any 447 assessment year to the Income Tax officer or Lo disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year or b notwithstanding that there has been no omission or failure as mentioned in clause a on the part of the assessee the Income tax officer has in consequence of information in his possession reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year he may subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153 assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance as the case may be for the assessment year concerned In cases falling under section 147b the expression information prescribes one of the conditions upon which a concluded assessment may be reopened under that provision
It is an indispensable ingredient which must exist before the section can be availed of
What does information in section 147b connote  In Maharaj Karnal Singh vs Commissioner of Income tax this Court construing the corresponding section 341 b of the Indian Income Tax Act 1922 held the word information to mean not only facts or factual material but to include also information as to the true and correct state of the law and therefore information as to relevant judicial decisions
Thereafter in Commissioner of Income tax vs Raman  Company the Court defined the expression information in section 147b of the Income Tax Act 1961 as instruction or knowledge derived from an external source concerning facts or particulars or as to law relating to a matter bearing on the assessment
 That definition has been reaffirmed in subsequent cases and with it as the point of departure we shall now proceed
In so far as the word information means instruction or know ledge concerning facts or particulars there is little difficulty
By its inherent nature a fact has concrete existence
It influences the determination of an issue by the mere circumstance of its relevance
It requires no further authority to make it significant
Its quint essential value lies in its definitive vitality
448 But when information is regarded as meaning instruction or knowledge as to law the position is more complex
When we speak of law we ordinarily speak of norms or guiding principles having legal effect and legal consequences
To possess legal significance for that purpose it must be enacted or declared by competent authority
The legal sanction vivifying it imparts to it its force and validity and binding nature
Law may be statutory law or what is popularly described as judge made law
In the former case it proceeds from enactment having its source in competent legislative authority
Judge made law emanates from a declaration or exposition of the content of a legal principle or the interpretation of a statute and may in particular cases extend to a definition of the status of a party or the legal relationship between parties the declaration being rendered by a competent judicial or quasi judicial authority empowered to decide questions of law between contending parties
The declaration or exposition is ordinarily set forth in the judgment of a court or the order of a tribunal
Such declaration or exposition in itself bears the character of law
In every case therefore to be law it must be a creation by a formal source either legislative or judicial authority
A statement by a person or body not competent to create or define the law cannot be regarded as law
The suggested interpretation of enacted legislation and the elaboration of legal principles in text books and journals do not enjoy the status of law
They are merely opinions and at best evidence in regard to the state of the law and in themselves possess no binding effect as law
The forensic submissions of professional lawyers and the seminal activities of legal academics enjoy no higher status
Perhaps the only exception is provided by the writings of publicists in international law for in the law of nations the distinction between formal and material sources is difficult to maintain
In that view therefore when section 147b of the Income Tax Act is read as referring to information as to law what is contemplated is information as to the law created by a formal source
It is law we must remember which because it issues from a competent legislature or a competent judicial or quasi judicial authority influence the course of the assessment and decides any one or more of those matters which determine the assessee s tax liability
In determining the status of an internal audit report it is necessary to consider the nature and scope of the functions of an internal audit party
The internal audit organisation of the Income Tax Department was set up primarily for imposing a check over the arithmetical accuracy of the computation of income and the determination of tax and now 449 because of the audit of income tax receipts being entrusted to the A Comptroller and Auditor General of India from 1960 it is intended as an exercise in removing mistakes and errors in income tax records before they are submitted to the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor General
Consequently the nature of its work and the scope of audit have assumed a dimension ca extensive with that of Receipt Audit
The nature and scope of Receipt Audit are defined by section 16 of the Comptroller and Auditor General s Duties Powers and Conditions of Services Act 1971
Under that section the audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General is principally intended for the purposes of satisfying him with regard to the sufficiency of the rules and procedures prescribed for the purpose of securing an effective check on the assessment collection and proper allocation of revenue
He is entitled to examine the accounts in order to ascertain whether the rules and procedures are being duly observed and he is required upon such examination to submit a report
His powers in respect of the audit of income tax receipts and refunds are outlined in the Board s Circular No 1419 56 II dated July 28 1960
Paragraph 2 of the Circular repeats the provisions of section 16 of the Comptroller and Auditor General s Duties Powers and Conditions of Service Act 1971
And paragraph 3 warns that the Audit Department should not in any way substitute itself for the revenue authorities in the performance of their statutory duties
 Paragraph 4 declares 4
Audit does not consider it any part of its duty to pass in review the judgment exercised or the decision taken in individual cases by officers entrusted with those duties but it must be recognised that an examination of such cases may be an important factor in judging the effectiveness of assessment procedure 
It is however to forming a general judgment rather than to the detection of individual errors of assessment etc
that the audit enquiries should be 450 directed
The detection of individual errors is an incident rather than the object of audit Other provisions stress that the primary function of audit in relation to assessments and refunds is the consideration whether the internal procedures are adequate and sufficient
It is not intended that the purpose of audit should go any further
Our attention has been invited to certain provisions of the Internal Audit Manual more specifically defining the functions of internal audit in the Income Tax Department
While they speak of the need to check all assessments and refunds in the light of the relevant tax laws the orders of the Commissioners of Income Tax and the instructions of the Central Board of Direct Taxes nothing contained therein can be construed as conferring on the contents of an internal audit report the status of a declaration of law binding on the Income Tax Officer
Whether it is the internal audit party of the Income Tax Department or an audit party of the Comptroller and Auditor General they perform essentially administrative or executive functions and cannot be attributed the powers of judicial supervision over the quasi judicial acts of income tax authorities
The Income Tax Act does not contemplate such power in any internal audit organisation of the Income Tax Department it recognises it in those authorities only which are specifically authorised to exercise adjudicatory functions
Nor does section 16 of the Comptroller and Auditor General s Duties Powers and Conditions of Service Act 1971 envisage such a power for the attainment of the objectives incorporated therein
Neither statute supports the conclusion that an audit party can pronounce on the law and that such pronouncement amounts to information within the meaning of section 147b of the Income Tax Act 1961
But although an audit party does not possess the power to so pronounce on the law it nevertheless may draw the attention of the Income Tax officer to it
Law is one thing and its communication another
If the distinction between the source of the law and the communicator of the law is carefully maintained the confusion which often results in applying section 147b may be avoided
While the law may be enacted or laid down only by a person or body with authority in that behalf the knowledge or awareness of the law may be communicated by anyone
No authority is required for the purpose
In the present case an internal audit party of the Income Tax Department expressed the view that the receipts from the occupation of the conference hall and rooms did not attract section 10 of the Act and that the assessment should have been made under section 9
While 451 sections 9 and 10 can be described as law the opinion of the audit A party in regard to their application is not law
It is not a declaration by a body authorised to declare the law
That part alone of the note of an audit party which mentions the law which escaped the notice of the Income Tax officer constitutes information within the meaning of section 147b the part which embodies the opinion of the audit parts in regard to the application or interpretation of the law cannot be taken into account by the Income Tax Officer
In every case the Income Tax officer must determine for himself what is the effect and consequence of the law mentioned in the audit note and whether in consequence of the law which has now come to his notice he can reasonably believe that income has escaped assessment
The basis of his belief must be the law of which he has now become aware
The opinion rendered by the audit party in regard to the law cannot for the purpose of such belief add to or colour the significance of such law
In short the true evaluation of the law in its bearing on the assessment must be made directly and solely by the Income Tax officer
Now in the case before us the Income Tax officer had when he made the original assessment considered the provisions of sections 9 and 10
Any different view taken by him afterwards on the application of those provisions would amount to a change of opinion of material already considered by him
The Revenue contends that it is open to him to do so and on that basis to reopen the assessment under section 147b
Reliance is placed on Kalyanji Mavji  Co vs Commissioner of Income Tax where a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court observed that a case where income had escaped assessment due to the oversight inadvertence or mistake of the Income Tax officer must fall within section 341 b of the Indian Income Tax Act 1922
It appears to us with respect that the proposition is stated too widely and travels farther than the statute warrants in so far as it can be said to lay down that if on reappraising the material considered by him during the original assessment the Income Tax officer discovers that he has committed an error in consequence of which income has escaped assessment it is open to him to reopen the assessment
In our opinion an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material and not more does not give him that power
That was the view taken by this Court in Maharaj Kamal Singh vs Commissioner of Income Tax supra Commissioner of Income Tax vs Raman and Company supra and Bankipur Club Ltd vs Commissioner of Income Tax
and we do not believe that 452 the law has since taken a different course
Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji  Co v Commissioner of Income Tax supra suggesting the contrary do not we say with respect lay down the correct law
A further submission raised by the Revenue on section 147b of the Act may be considered at this stage
It is urged that the expression information in section 147b refers to the realisation by the Income Tax officer that he has committed an error when making the original assessment
It is said that when upon receipt of the audit note the Income Tax officer discovers or realizes that a mistake has been committed in the original assessment the discovery of the mis take would be information within the meaning of section 147b
The submission appears to us inconsistent with the terms of section 147b
Plainly the statutory provision envisages that the Income Tax officer must first have information in his possession and then in consequence of such information he must have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment
The realisation that income has escaped assessment is covered by the words reason to believe 
and it follows from the information received by the Income Tax officer
The information is not the realisation the information gives birth to the realisation
The recent decision of this Court in R K Malhotra vs Kasturbhai Lalbhai supra may be examined now
While making an assessment on a Hindu undivided family the Income Tax officer allowed a deduction of municipal taxes in determining the annual value of two house properties occupied by the assessee
Subsequently the Income Tax officer re opened the assessment on receipt of a report from the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India that on a true interpretation of section 232 of the Income Tax Act 1961 the deduction of municipal taxes was not admissible in the computation of the annual value of self occupied house properties
The assessee contended that the report did not constitute information within the meaning of section 147b of the Act and the Gujarat High Court accepted the plea in the view that information as to law would consist of a statement by a person body or authority competent and authorised to pronounce upon the law and invested with the authority to do so and that the Audit Department was not such competent or authorised authority
On appeal by the Revenue a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court although endorsing the principle enunciated by the High Court said that the audit department was the proper machinery to scrutinise assessments made by the Income Tax officer and to point out errors of law contained therein and the High Court had 453 erred in taking the strict view which it did
The Court rested its decision on Assistant Controller of Estate Duty vs Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan Bahadur Commissioner of Income Tax vs H H Smt
Chand Kanwarji supra Commissioner of Income Tax vs Kalukutty and Vashist Bhargava vs Income Tax officer
In Assistant Controller of Estate Duty vs Nawab Sir Mir osman Ali Khan Bahadur supra this Court held the opinion of the Central Board of Revenue as regards the correct valuation of securities for the purpose of estate duty to be information within the meaning of section 59 of the on the basis of which the Controller of Estate Duty was held entitled to entertain a reasonable belief that property assessed to estate duty had been under valued
The circumstance that the opinion of the Board was rendered in an appeal filed before it under the against the assessment made by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty was apparently not brought to the notice of this Court when it heard R K Malhotra vs Kasturbhai Lalbhai supra
The opinion of the Board represented its view as a quasi judicial authority possessing jurisdiction to lay down the law
Although the Board did not enhance the valuation of the securities in the appellate proceeding because of the argument advanced by the appellant nonetheless its observations amounted to information as to the law
It was not a case where the Board was functioning as an extrajudicial authority performing administrative or executive functions and not competent or authorised to pronounce upon the law
The Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs H H Smt
Chand Kanwarji supra held that the scrutiny note of Revenue Audit constituted information within the meaning of section 147b of the Income Tax Act because the Comptroller and Auditor General of India was empowered by statute to scrutinise the proceedings of the Income Tax Department and to point out defects and mistakes which adversely affected the Revenue
The High Court considered that the view that information as to law could be gathered only from the decisions of judicial or quasi judicial authorities was unduly restrictive
In Commissioner of Income tax vs Kalukutty supra the Kerala High Court also regarded the note put up by Audit as information within the meaning of section 147b of the Act but it appears to have assumed without anything more that an audit note would fall within that expression
As regards Vashist Bhargava vs Income Tax officer supra the information consisted in a note of the Revenue Audit 454 and the Ministry of Law that the payment of interest by the assessee was in fact made to his own account in the Provident Fund and therefore in law the money paid did not vest in the Government and consequently the original assessment was erroneous in so far as it allowed the deduction of the interest as expenditure made by the assessee
The Delhi High Court upheld the reassessment on the finding that the note of the Revenue Audit and the Ministry of Law had to be taken into account by the Income Tax officer because in his executive capacity he had to be guided by the advice rendered by the Ministry of Law and he had to pay due regard to the note of the Revenue Audit because the officers of the Audit Department were experts empowered to examine and check upon the work of the Income Tax officers
It seems to us that the considerations on which the Delhi High Court rested its judgment are not correct
But the decision of the case can be supported on the ground that the basic information warranting the re opening of the assessment was the fact that the payment of interest was made to the Provident Fund account of the assesses himself
That the money so paid did not vest in the Government was a conclusion which followed automatically upon that fact and no controversy in law could possibly arise on that point
On the considerations prevailing with us we are of opinion that the view taken by the Delhi High Court and the Kerala High Court in the aforementioned cases is wrong and we must with great respect hold that this Court was in error in the conclusion reached by it is
R K Malhotra vs Kasturbhai Lalbhai supra
Our attention has been drawn to the further decision of the Kerala High Court in Muthukrishna Reddier vs Commissioner of Income Tax Kerala and the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Raj Kumar Shrawan Kumar vs Central Board of Direct Taxes  Anr and Elgin Mills Co Ltd vs Income Tax officer Companies Circle A Ward Kanpur
The Kerala High Court merely followed its earlier judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs Kalukutty supra and the Allahabad High Court was impressed by the same reasons substantially which persuaded the Delhi High Court and the Kerala High Court in the cases referred to above
Therefore whether considered on the basis that the
nature and scope of the functions of the internal audit organisation of the Income Tax Department are co extensive with that of Receipt Audit or on the 455 basis of the provisions specifically detailing its functions in the Internal Audit Manual we hold that the opinion of an internal audit party of the Income Tax Department on a point of law cannot be regarded as information within the meaning of section 147b of the Income Tax Act 1961
The question referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is answered in the negative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue The assessee is entitled to one set of costs in these appeals
PBR Appeals allowed 


Summary:
Section 147b of the Income Tax Act 1961 provides that if an Income Tax officer has in consequence of information in his possession reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year he may assess or reassess such income
The internal audit organisation of the income tax department in the course of auditing the income tax records pertaining to the assessee for certain assessment years stated that the assessee s income on account of letting out of halls and rooms should not have been assessed as income from business but an assessment should have been made under the head Income from property
Treating the report as information in his possession under section 147b the Income Tax officer re assessed the assessee s income The Appellate Assistant Commissioner reversed the Income Tax officers order
On the other hand the Appellate Tribunal took the view that the Income Tax officer had jurisdiction to proceed under s147b
In a reference under s257 of the Income Tax Act the question was whether the Income Tax officer was legally justified in reopening the assessment under section 147b on the basis of the view expressed by the Internal Audit party received by him subsequent to the original assessment
Allowing the appeal  HELD The opinion of the internal audit organization of the Department on a point of law cannot be regarded as information within the meaning of section 147b of the Act
455A
a An assessment proceeding which is a quasi judicial proceeding acquires finality on the assessment order being made
The finality of such an order can be disturbed only in proceedings and within the confines provided by law
An appeal revision and rectification are proceedings in which the finality of the assessment may be questioned
Section 147 under which an assessment may be reopened is a proceeding for assessing income which has escaped assessment
446F G 2
In cases falling under section 147b information is an indispensable ingredient
The word  information   has been interpreted by this Court to mean not only facts or factual material but include information as to the true and correct state of the law and therefore information as to relevant judicial decisions
The term is also defined as instruction or Knowledge derived from an external source concerning facts or particular or as to law relating to n matter bearing on the assessment
447D F Mahaaraj Kamal Singh vs Commissioner of Income Tax 1959 Sup
I SCR 10 Commissioner of Income Tax vs Raman  Company 67 ITR IlSC1968 I SCR 10 referred to
443 3a By its inherent nature a fact has concrete existence
It influences the determination of an issue by the mere circumstance of its relevance
It requires no further authority to make it significant
447 H
b The term law  is used in the sense of norms or guiding principles having legal effect and legal consequences
To possess legal significance for that purpose law must be enacted or declared by a competent authority
The legal sanction vivifying it imparts to it its force and validity and binding nature
Law may be statutory law enacted by a competent legislative authority or it may be judge made law emanating from a declaration or exposition of the content of a legal principle or the interpretation of a statue and may in particular cases extend to a definition of the status of a party or the legal relationship between the parties the declaration being rendered by a competent judicial or quasi judicial authority empowered to decide questions of law between contending parties
The declaration or exposition is ordinarily set forth in the judgment of a court or the order of a tribunal
Such declaration or exposition in itself bears the character of law
In every case therefore to be law it must be a creation by a formal source either legislative or judicial authority
A statement by a person or body not competent to create or define the law cannot be regarded as law
448A D c Where section 147b is read as referring to information  as to law what is contemplated is information  as to the law created by a formal source
It is law which because it issues from a competent legislature or a competent judicial or quasi judicial authority influences the course of the assessment and decides any one or more of these matters which determine the assessee s tax liability 448G 4
The Internal Audit organisation of the Income Tax Department was set up primarily for imposing a check over the arithmetical accuracy of the computation of income and the determination of tax
The audit of income tax receipts having been entrusted to the Comptroller and Auditor General of India it is intended as an exercise in removing mistakes and errors in income tax records before they are submitted to the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor General
The audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General is by virtue of section 16 of the Comptroller and Auditor General Duties Powers and Conditions of Service Act 1971 intended to ensure the sufficiency or otherwise of the rules and procedures prescribed for the purpose of securing an effective check on the assessment collection and proper allocation of revenue and to ascertain whether the rules and procedure are being fully observed and L nothing more
Therefore the contents of an internal audit report cannot be construed as enjoying the status of a declaration of law binding on the Income Tax Officer
Both the internal audit party of the Income Tax Department and the Audit report of the Comptroller and Auditor General perform essentially administrative or executive functions and cannot be attributed the power of judicial supervision over the quasi judicial acts of income tax authorities
The statute does not contemplate such power The opinion of the audit party in regard to the application of one section of the Income Tax Act instead of another by the Income Tax officer is not law because it is rot a declaration by a body authorised to declare the law
450B F 444 5
While the law may be enacted or laid down only by a body or person with authority in that behalf knowledge or awareness of the law may be communicated by any one
No authority is required for the purpose of communicating knowledge or awareness of the law
450G 6 a In every case the Income Tax officer must determine for himself what the effect and consequence of the law mentioned in the audit note are and whether in consequence of the law which has come to his notice he can reasonably believe that income had escaped assessment
The basis of his belief must be the law of which he has now become aware
The true evaluation of the law in its bearing on the assessment must be made directly and solely by the Income Tax officer
451C D Maharaj Kamal Singh vs Commissioner of Income Tax 35 ITR I SC 1959 Sup
I SCR 10 Commissioner of Income Tax vs Raman  Company 1 SCR 10 Bankipur Club Ltd vs Commissioner of Income Tax followed R K Malhotra Income Tax officer Croup Circle 111 Ahmedabad vs Kasturbhai Lalbhai  Kalyanji Mavji  Co vs Commissioner of Income Tax  over ruled
Assistant Controller of Estate Duty Y Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan Bahadur referred to
Commissioner of Income Tax vs H H Smt
Chand Kanwarji Alwar  Commissioner of Income Tax vs Kalukutty  Vashist Bharghava vs Income Tax officer  Muthukrishna Reddier v Com missioner of Income Tax Kerala  Raj Kumar Shrawan Kumar vs Central Board of Direct Taxes  Anr  Elgin Mills Co Ltd vs Income Tax officer Companies Circle A  Ward Kanpur not approved
b The error discovered by the Income Tax Officer on a reconsideration of the same material and nothing more does not give the Income Tax Officer the power to reopen the assessment
451G c The submission of the Revenue that upon receipt of the audit note the Income Tax officer discovers or realises that a mistake has been committed in the original assessment and therefore the discovery of the mistake would be information within the meaning of section 147b is inconsistent with the terms of the section
What the section envisages is that the Income Tax officer must first have information in his possession and then in consequence of such information he must have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment
The realisation that income has escaped assessment is covered by the words reason to believe and it follows from the information received by him
The information is not the realisation the information gives birth to the realisation
452C D