JUDGMENT : Das, C.J. - This matter comes to us for decision on the statement of the case made by the income tax Appellate Tribunal in compliance with the direction of this Court dated 28-4-50 requiring the Tribunal to state the following case for the decision of the Court, viz., Whether in the circumstances of this case, the assessment made u/s 34 of the income tax Act is valid? 2. The assessment that is now objected to on behalf of the applicant before us, is the assessment for the year 1942-43 on the basis of an accepted return submitted by the Assessee with reference to a notice issued on 26-2-47 by the income tax Officer u/s 34 of the income tax Act. The point urged against the validity of the assessment is that on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, there was no scope for the application of Section 34 of the Indian income tax Act and that the assessment is consequently invalid. It is necessary to mention that the question thus raised is with reference to Section 34 of the Indian income tax Act as it stood after the amendment thereof in 1939 and before the amendment of 1948 The relevant portion of Section 34(1) during this period, viz., 1939-1948, stood as follows: 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 such income tax, a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included under Sub-section (2) of Section 22 and may proceed to assess or reassess such income. 3. The facts of the case have been fully set out in paragraphs 2 to 8 of the statement of the case made to this Court by the Tribunal. They may be summarised as follows: The applicant before us was being assessed until the year 1942-48, as an individual in respect of a business which he was carrying on. For the assessment year 1942-43 he submitted a return as an individual, but stated that the business had become a partnership concern of himself and two others in which he had only a seven-anna-share. For the assessment year 1942-43 he submitted a return as an individual, but stated that the business had become a partnership concern of himself and two others in which he had only a seven-anna-share. He filed therewith a statement of the account showing the profits of the business and his seven-anna-share therein. Along with that return he also mad an application for registration of the said firm u/s 26-A of the Act. The income tax Officer held that there was no partnership and refused registration by his order dated 31-10-44. He treated the Assessee as the proprietor of the entire business, assessed he profits thereof and determined the tax payable on that footing by another order of the same date, i.e., 31-10-44. As against these orders; the Assessee filed two appeals: (1) with reference to the decision u/s 26-A declining to register the firm; and (2) in respect of the quantum of the profits assessed against the Assessee as an individual owning the entire business. 4. These two appeals were dealt with by different authorities for reasons which it is unnecessary to notice for the present purpose. The appeal relating to registration of the firm u/s 26-A was dealt with by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Central Range, Patna, on 31-3-46. It was decided that the business was to be treated as Belonging to a firm consisting of this individual Assessee and two other partners as claimed by him. Accordingly the firm was ordered to be registered. The appeal as regards the quantum of assessment, came up for disposal before another officer, viz., the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Southern Range, Purulia. The material portion of his order dated 20-12-46 was as follows: Correct Status: The income tax Officer treated the business as belonging to Abdul Sattar in his individual capacity, but the Appellant urges that the business belongs to a firm of three brothers, viz., Abdul Sattar, Abdul Habib, and Haji Gaffoor. An appeal was filed against the refusal of registration and it has been held in that appeal order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of income tax, Central Range, Patna, dated 31-3-46 for the assessment year 1942-43 that the business belongs to the Firm as alleged and registration has also been ordered. In these circumstances, no separate order is necessary now as the income tax Officer has to treat the business as belonging to a Firm. 5. In these circumstances, no separate order is necessary now as the income tax Officer has to treat the business as belonging to a Firm. 5. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner after dealing with number of other individual items relating to quantum of profits of the Firm, with reference to which objections were raised before him, wound up his order as follows: The total income is reduced by Rs. 2132/- and enhanced by Rs. 4500/-. The income tax Officer is further authorised to amend the assessment of the partners accordingly. 6. Thus by this order he determined the assessable income of the Firm and directed the income of the partners to be determined and assessed. The income tax Officer, Berhampur, appears, thereupon, to have taken up the matter. He made the following order on 24-2-47, which has led to the assessment now in question: The assessment for the year 1942-43 in the case of the Firm "Abdul Sattar Hajee Ahmad," now an E.P.T. case was assessed as an individual. As per order of the A.A.C., Central Range, No. 66 of 1945-46, dated 31-3-46, appeal against the order u/s 26-A having been allowed, issue notice u/s 34 read with Section 22(2) to file return of income. 7. Notice was accordingly issued on 26-2-47 and the return in compliance with that notice appears to have been filed by the Assessee at once. The return was accepted and the Petitioner has been assessed by order dated 2a2-47, whose validity is now under challenge. It is to be noticed that the return was filed without any objection and that the present objection to the validity of assessment is taken only in appeal. The above are substantially the facts, as stated by the Tribunal in the reference to us. 8. On these facts, it is urged that the fresh assessment made by the income tax Officer in the 1947 against the applicant was, merely the result of the view taken by the appellate authority that on the evidence placed before him, the business belonged not to the applicant as the sole owner, but to a partnership of which the applicant was only a member having a seven-anna-share, contrary to what the income tax Officer held on the same evidence. It is contended that the fact of the appellate authority having taken a different view of the evidence from that of the original assessing authority, does not constitute "definite information" within the meaning of Section 34 of the Indian income tax Act, so as to the entitle, the original assessing authority to restart assessment against him. For and against this argument, quite a number of cases have been cited by both sides, of which it is sufficient to mention 1944 ITR 8; 1944 ITR 341; 1945 ITR 194; 1945 ITR 242; 1950 ITR 530; 1950 ITR 773 & 1951 ITR 208. 9. Before going into the question of law raised in this case, it is desirable to consider what is the view of the facts to be taken as to the course of events relating to the assessment in question with reference to what has been above stated, and keeping in mind, the relevant provisions of the Indian income tax Act. On the facts found, the Assessee is a partner of a registered firm. The procedure for assessment of a registered firm and of its partners is that provided in Clause (a) of Sub-section (5) of Section 23 of the Act, which is as follows: Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing Sub-sections, when the Assessee is a firm and the total income of the firm has been assessed under Sub-section (1), Sub-section (3), or Sub-section (4) as the case may be the sum payable by the firm itself (in the case of a registered firm) shall not be determined but the total income of each partner of the firm, including therein his share of its income, profits and gains of the previous year, shall be assessed and sum payable by him on the basis of such assessment shall be determined. 10. It would follow therefore that on the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in this case, dated 31-3-46, and on the basis of his direction to register the partnership u/s 6-A, what has to be determined first, is the taxable income of the firm itself; but that the levy of the tax is to be made not on the firm, but as against the individuals who are the partners of the firm. Having regard to this prescribed Procedure, and having regard to the fact that there had been by then no return filed by or on behalf of the firm as such, and no assessment of the firm made, the income tax authorities might well have stated assessment proceedings against the firm and the other two individual partners, and kept the quantum-appeal of this-applicant pending until the assessment of the firm and of the other partners was made and dealt with all of them together. But instead of doing that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who had to deal with the quantum-appeal, treated the appeal before him as one relating to the firm itself presumably also treating all the prior proceedings before the income tax Officer as taken on behalf of the firm and passed his orders determining the taxable profits of he firm and directed that all the partners were to be individually assessed. It is to be noticed' that no objection was raised by the present applicant, to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the prior proceeding as relating to the firm itself. Such a course also appears to have been justified with reference to Section 30(1) of the income tax Act, which says that an appeal on behalf of the firm is maintainable by any individual partner that the quantum-appeal was treated as one relating to the fir m and not to the individual with the full knowledge and constant of the present Petitioner himself, is, to some extent, indicated in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dated 20-12-46, which shows that the "Appellant urged that the business belongs to a firm". In any case, this is fully substantiated by the fact that in all the subsequent stages of that appeal, the proceedings relating to the quantum of assessment, were treated as on behalf of the firm as shown by the following steps taken. As against the said order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, there was an appeal to the income tax Appellate Tribunal which was dismissed. On such dismissal, an application was made to the Tribunal u/s 66(1) of the Act for a reference to this Court which was also dismissed. Against that dismissal, an application was made to this Court u/s 66(2) of the Act, which wag dealt with by this Court and dismissed in S.C.J. 86/49. On such dismissal, an application was made to the Tribunal u/s 66(1) of the Act for a reference to this Court which was also dismissed. Against that dismissal, an application was made to this Court u/s 66(2) of the Act, which wag dealt with by this Court and dismissed in S.C.J. 86/49. A perusal of these proceedings found in the paper-book of S.C.J. 86/49, shows clearly that the present applicant himself treated the further stages of these proceedings as relating to the firm and not to the individual. It is enough to refer to the very first paragraph of the application to this Court in S.C.J. 86/49 relating to the quantum-appeal which is as follows: That the Petitioner is a partnership firm registered u/s 26-A read with Section 31 of the Act. 11. Thus, what wag in the year 1944 treated by the income tax Officer, Berhampur, as an assessment proceeding against this individual-Petitioner owning the entire business, became, in view of the course that the subsequent stages of these proceedings took in 1943 an assessment of the firm itself, which resulted in proceedings determining the taxable income of the firm; but without any tax being levied thereupon. It is, in these circumstances, that the income tax Officer, Berhampur, initiated fresh assessment proceedings against the Petitioner u/s 34 and issued notice to him dated 26-2-47. It appears to me, therefore, that the only reasonable view to take of the course of the events which' have taken place is not that the fresh proceedings were initiated merely because a different view of the evidence was taken by the appellate authority as to the ownership of the business, but because, over and above that, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who dealt with the quantum-appeal converted the individual appeal into an appeal on behalf of the firm without objection by the Petitioner. It is when this fact came to the notice of the income tax Officer, Berhampur, and it is in pursuance of the direction contained in the appellate order dated 20-12-46, that the fresh assessment proceedings against the Petitioner were started. It is when this fact came to the notice of the income tax Officer, Berhampur, and it is in pursuance of the direction contained in the appellate order dated 20-12-46, that the fresh assessment proceedings against the Petitioner were started. These fresh assessment proceedings were the direct result of the order dated 20-12-46 and not merely of the much earlier order dated 31-3-46 notwithstanding that his order dated 24-2-47 refers in terms only to the order dated 31-3-46, and not to the order dated 20-12-46 is a matter of obvious and reasonable inference from the sequence of events. It appears to me, therefore I that the fresh assessment was based on the definite information which the income tax Officer, Berhampur, obtained as to the fact that what was originally before him an individual assessment of the Petitioner became, by the way in which it was treated in the quantum-appeal, the assessment of the registered firm, the individual thereby escaping assessment. It has not been disputed before us that in the events that have happened, the present applicant has, in fact, escaped assessment by the time the fresh notice dated 28-2-47 was issued, and it is only on that footing that the question of law debated before us arises. Indeed, I may mention that the order of the income tax Appellate Tribunal u/s 66(1) in the present proceedings shows that there was a contention raised before it as appears from paragraph 3 of its order dismissing that application, that there has been no escapement of tax at all so for as this applicant was concerned; but no such contention has been put forward before us. In the view that I take of the course of events relating to the assessment in question, having regard to the facts slated a view which is substantially in accord with what the Tribunal has propounded in its statement of the case to us it appears to me that the discovery must be said to be on the basis of "definite information" of a fact. I am, therefore, of the opinion, that the question of law debated in this case by the citation of various rulings, does not arise for consideration. In my opinion the assessment of the applicant u/s 34 of the Act is perfectly valid. 12. I am, therefore, of the opinion, that the question of law debated in this case by the citation of various rulings, does not arise for consideration. In my opinion the assessment of the applicant u/s 34 of the Act is perfectly valid. 12. I may and that there is no merit in the objection taken by the applicant before us It was taken for the first time in appeal against the assessment challenged and by the very person who has obtained the benefit of having escaped from assessment on account of the course which the proceeding Book with his knowledge and consent. 13. I answer the reference by holding that in the circumstances of this case, the assessment u/s 34 is valid. The Assessee will pay the costs which we fix as Rs. 100/-. Mahapatra, J. 14. I agree.