http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, U.P.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GURBUX RAI HARBUX RAI

DATE OF JUDGMENT24/08/1971

BENCH: GROVER, A.N. BENCH: GROVER, A.N. HEGDE, K.S.

CITATION:  1971 AIR 2444            1972 SCR  (1) 357

ACT: Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, ss. 10A and 15-Scope of.

HEADNOTE: Section  10A  of the Excess Profits Act,  1940,  deals  with transactions designed to avoid or reduce liability to excess profits  tax and empowers the Excess Profits Tax Officer  to make appropriate adjustments as respects liability to excess profits  tax.  But before any action can be taken under  the section, there should be pending a proceeding for assessment or  reassessment of excess profits tax.  Under s. 15, if  in consequence of definite information which has come into  his possession,  the Excess Profits Tax Officer  discovers  that the profits of any chargeable accounting period have escaped assessment,  he  may  serve a notice  on  the  assessee  and proceed to assess the profits liable to excess profits tax. In  the present case, the Appellate Assistant  Commissioner, in  appeal  from the Income-tax officer order,  stated  that there  was a partial partition in the family of one  of  the partners  of the assessee.  On the basis of that order,  the Excess Profits Tax Officer started proceedings under s. 1OA. He issued notices to the assessee under both ss. 15 and  10A on  the same-day, but the notice under s. 15 was ordered  to be  issued  first.   After  considering  the  reply  of  the assessee  the  Excess Profits Tax Officer  passed  an  order under s. 15 modifying the original assessment. On  the  questions  : (1) whether  the  Excess  Profits  Tax Officer was competent to apply the provisions of s. 10A  and make  the  revised assessment under s. 15, and  (2)  whether there  was any definite information by virtue of  which  the Excess  Profits  Tax  Officer was competent  to  reopen  the original assessment.. HELD  :  (1) Though the notices under ss. 15  and  10A  were issued  on  the  same date, the  requirements  of  law  were satisfied,  because,  the  Excess Profits  Tax  Officer  had initiated  proceedings  under s. 15, before  issuing  notice under s. 10A by ordering the notice under s. 15 to be issued first.  The assessee also did not take any objection in  his reply to the notice under s. 10A that the notice under s. 15 had  not  been  issued before the notice under  s.  10A  was issued. [365 F; 366 B-C] (2)The  information which came into the possession of  the Excess ProfitsTax Officer of partial partition having  been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

effected was relevant for thepurpose  of s. 15 and once  he had  initiated  proceedings  under  that  section,  he   was competent and had jurisdiction to examine for the purpose of s.  10A  whether  partial partition had  been  effected  for avoidance or reduction of liability to excess profits.  [367 B-C] (a)The Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the proceedings relating to the assessment of income tax of the assessee had stated  the  fact of partial partition which  was  certainly information  which  came into the possession of  the  Excess Profits  Tax Officer.  It was information received from  the decision  of superior authorities and not a mere  change  of opinion by himself. [366 F-G] 358 (b)The   proceedings   before  the   Appellate   Assistant Commissioner  related  only  to assessment  of  income  tax. Therefore,  it  could not be said, that because he  did  not consider  whether the object of the partition was to  reduce liability  to  excess profits, there was no  escapement  for purposes of excess profits tax. [367 A] Bansilal  v.  C.I.T., M.P., 70 I.T.R. 74 (S.C.)  and  Asstt. Controller  of  Estates Duty, Hyderabad v. H.E.H.  Nizam  of Hyderabad, 72 I.T.R. 376(S.C.), applied.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1225  and 1226 of 1967. Appeals  from the judgment and decree dated May 22, 1964  of the Allahabad High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 189  of 1953. S.T.  Desai,  R. N. Sachthey and B. D.  Sharma,  for  the appellant (in both the appeals). M.C. Chagla and A. N. Goyal, for the respondent (in  both the appeals). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah,  C. J. Gurbux Rai Harbux Rai-hereinafter  called  ’the assessee’-is  a  registered firm carrying on a  business  in piece  goods and commission agents.  It has its head  office at  Kanpur and a branch office at Farrukhabad.   During  the chargeable accounting periods July 4, 1943 to June 21,  1944 and June 22, 1944 to July 10, 1945 Gurbux Rai and Harbux Rai (each  representing his joint family) were the two  partners of  the assessees with equal shares in the profit and  loss. In  proceedings  for  assessment of  tax  under  the  Excess Profits  for  Act  1940 for the  two  chargeable  accounting periods the assessee informed the Tax Officer that the joint family  of  Gurbux Rai had been dissolved and  there  was  a reconstitution  of  the  business of  the  partnership  with effect  from July 4, 1943. , According to the  assessee  the constitution  of  the firm after partition was that  in  the firm  at  Kanpur the former two  partners  were  interested, their share being equal, but in the business of the firm  at Farrukhabad there were three partners-Harbux Rai with  -/8/- share, Chameli Devi with -/4/- share and Gopaldas with -/4/- share. In  assessing tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922  for the  assessment  year 1944-45 relevant to the  account  year ending  June 21, 1944 the Income-tax Officer held  that  the case set up by the assessee that there was partition amongst the  members  of  the  family of Gurbux  Rai  could  not  be accepted.  In the view of the Income-tax Officer, an attempt was made "to avoid proper incidence of taxation as an after- thought to create evidence for camouflaging the  Farrukhabad

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

business as a separate unit of assessment".  The  Income-tax Officer directed that the income be assessed as                             359 the  income  of  the assessee and not as  the  income  of  a separate  firm.   The excess profits  tax  assessment  being consequential  upon  the income-tax assessment,  the  Excess Profits  Tax Officer assessed the entire income of  the  two businesses at Kanpur and at Farrukhabad, in the hands of the assessee firm. Against  the  order  passed by the Income  Tax  Officer  the assessee  appealed to the Appellate  Assistant  Commissioner who by his order dated October 10, 1947 observed :               "......that  partial partition in  respect  of               movable property of Gurbux Rai was effected on               a date somewhere near Asadh Samvat 2000,  from               which  date  Farrukhabad was  conducted  by  a               separate  firm consisting of Harbux Rai,  Mst.               Chameli and Gopaldas". Pursuant  to this order the Income-tax Officer modified  the assessment with respect to the Income-tax assessment of  the assessee for the assessment years 1944-45 and 1945-46.   The Excess Profits Tax Officer however started proceedings under s.  10-A by notice dated February 6, 1951 calling  upon  the assessee  to show cause why appropriate  adjustments  should not  be  made in the assessment, and passed orders  in  that behalf  for both the chargeable accounting  periods  holding that the main purpose of the partial partition of the family business  of Gurbux Rai was avoidance of excess profits  tax liability.  By order dated February 21, 1951 passed under s. 15  of  the Excess Profits Tax Act the  Excess  Profits  Tax Officer modified the original excess profits tax assessment. In  the revised assessment in pursuance of orders  under  s. 10-A   he  included  the  income  of  the  branch  shop   at Farrukhabad in the total income of the assessee for purposes of  excess  profits-tax assessment.  The  assessee  appealed against  the order of additional assessment contending  that the  Excess Profits Tax Officer was not competent to  reopen the  case  under  s. 15 as he had  no  definite  information coming  into his possession to enable him to  discover  that the profits of the chargeable accounting period had  escaped assessment.   The assessee contended that all the  materials in  the case were before the Excess Profits Tax  Officer  at the  time of his original assessment and no new  information came  into  his possession thereafter.   The  assessee  also contended  that  the  Excess Profits  Tax  Officer  was  not competent to pass any order under s. 10-A merely to make  an adjustment  in  the  revised assessment under  s.  15.   The Income-tax  Appellate Tribunal held that the Excess  Profits Tax Officer had received definite information regarding  the state of the law in pursuance of the appellate order of  the Appellate  Assistant  Commissioner  who had  held  that  the family  of  Gurbux  Rai  was  partially  partitioned.    The Tribunal  also held that the Excess Profits Tax Officer  was competent  to  pass an order under s. 10-A,  of  the  Excess Profits Tax Act. 3 6 0 The Tribunal thereafter referred the following questions  to the  High  Court  of Allahabad under s.  21  of  the  Excess Profits Act read with s. 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act,  1922 :               "(1)   Whether  on  the  facts  and   in   the               circumstances  of  this  case  there  was  any               definite information within the meaning of  s.                             15  by virtue of which the Excess  Pro fits  Tax

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

             Officer  was  competent to reopen  the  excess               profits tax assessments ?               (2)   Whether  in  the circumstances  of  this               case,  the  Excess  Profits  Tax  Officer  was               competent  to apply the provisions of s.  10-A               and  make necessary  adjustments,in  pursuance               thereto in the revised assessment under s.  15               ?" The  High  Court  of Allahabad held that  since  the  Excess Profits  ’Tax  Officer purported to  reopen  the  assessment under  s. 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act "only because  of the order of-the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax holding that the Farrukhabad business was no longer  the business  of the assessee and that the family of Gurbux  Rai had partitioned its movable property, all of which proceeded upon material which was already initially before the  Excess Profits  Tax  Officer and to which he had applied  his  mind when  he  made the original assessment, it was  not  a  case where  the  Excess Profits Tax Officer can be said  to  have discovered",  in consequence of definite  information  which had  come  into his possession, that profits  chargeable  to excess  profits tax had escaped assessment.  The High  Court accordingly answered the first question in the negative. The High Court then observed that if the Excess Profits  Tax Officer was not competent to take proceedings under s. 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, it was not open to him to  apply the provisions of s. 10 in the proceedings up= reopening the assessment  under s. 15, for, in the view of the High  Court an  order under s. 10-A may be passed only where the  Excess Profits  Tax Officer is seized of jurisdiction in a  pending assessment proceeding.  As the proceedings initiated by  the Excess Profits Tax Officer under s. 15 were void,: he had no power  to make an order under s. 10-A of the Act.  The  High Court  accordingly answered the second question also in  the negative. Against  the  order  passed by the  High  Court,  these  two appeals are preferred. A  parallel proceeding which had come before this  Court  in Civil Appeals Nos. 741-743 of 1966 Gurbux Rai Harbux Rai  v. The  Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. decided on  August  2, 1968  may also be referred to.  It may be recalled that  the Excess 361 Profits  Tax Officer at Kanpur had served a notice under  s. 10-A of the Excess Profits Tax Act requiring the assessee to show cause why appropriate adjustments as respects liability to excess profits tax should not be made so as to counteract the  avoidance or reduction of liability to  excess  profits tax  by  converting  the business in the  name  of  Pussulal Jangalal  the  Farrukhabad firm -into a  separate  business. The contention of the assessee that disruption of the family was a genuine and bona fide transaction was rejected by  the Excess  Profits Tax Officer.  The case was therein taken  to the  Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.  The Tribunal  confirmed the  order  of the Excess Profits Tax Officer.  But  at  the instance of the assessee the Tribunal referred the following question to the High Court of Allahabad :               "Whether  on  the facts and  circumstances  of               this case, the transaction in question was one               which  could be. avoided under s. 10-A of  the               Excess Profits Tax Act ?" The  High  Court by order dated July 31, 1969  answered  the question  in the affirmative.  Against the order  passed  by the High Court no further proceedings has been taken by  the assessee  challenging the conclusion of the High  Court  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

that order has become final. The  High Court has held in the judgment under  appeal  that action  taken under s. 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act  was not  competent  and on that account the Excess  Profits  Tax Officer  had  not jurisdiction in the matter.   But  in  the judgment  of the High Court in Income-tax Reference No.  118 of 1962 decided on July 31, 1969 no question of jurisdiction arose.  The Court had only answered the question whether the transaction  of  partial partition was one  which  could  be avoided  under s. 10-A of the Excess Profits Tax  Act.   The decision  of the High Court (which had become  final)  about the  authority  of the Excess Profits Tax  Officer  to  take action   taken   under   s.  10-A  does   not   affect   the maintainability of the present appeal.  Section  10-A of the Excess Profits Tax Act, insofar as  it is relevant, provides :                "(1) Where the Excess Profits Tax Officer  is               of opinion that the main purpose for which any               transaction                         was  effected               was the avoidance or reduction of liability to               excess   profits  tax,  he  may,   make   such               adjustments  as respects liability  to  excess               profits tax as he considers appropriate so  as               to counter-               362               act the avoidance or reduction of liability to               excess  profits tax which would  otherwise  be               effected by the transaction               Section 15, insofar as it is relevant provides               "If  in  consequence of  definite  information               which has come into his possession, the Excess               Profits Tax Officer discovers that profits  of               any chargeable accounting period chargeable to               excess profits tax have escaped assessment, or               have  been  under-assessed, or have  been  the               subject  of  excessive relief, he may  at  any               time serve on the person liable to such tax  a               notice   containing   all  or   any   of   the               requirements which may be included in a notice               under section 13, and may proceed to assess or               reassess the amount of such profits liable  to               excess profits tax The  High Court in the judgment under appeal held that  pro- ceeding  under s. 10-A may be commenced only if there  be  a valid  proceeding  under the Excess Profits  Tax  which  was pending  for  assessment or reassessment of  excess  profits which  had  escaped assessment and not  otherwise.   In  our opinion  the  High Court was right in so holding.   S.  10-A does not contemplate an independent proceeding.  Section 10- A  merely confers power upon the Excess Profits Tax  Officer to  make  adjustments with respect to  liability  to  excess profits tax : it confers power which the Excess Profits  Tax Officer  may  exercise  in  the  course  of  the   ,original assessment or in the course of re-assessment. It is necessary therefore to determine whether an order  was made under s. 10-A in a pending proceeding for assessment of Excess  Profits tax.  But the question whether there  was  a pending  proceeding  under s. 15 in the course of  which  an order  under s. 10-A could be made cannot be ascertained  on the  materials  available  before us.  The  High  Court  had decided  that  the  proceeding under S. 15  was  not  valid, because  there was no definite information with  the  Excess Profits Tax Officer and on that account proceeding under  s. 10-A  was not valid.  It has been assumed that there  was  a pending  proceeding  under s. 15 in the course of  which  an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

order under s. 10-A was made.  Expression of that opinion of the  High Court is challenged.  We are of the view  that  in the  interests  of justice, it is necessary that  a  supple- mentary  statement of the case should be called for  on  the question  whether there was any proceeding pending under  s. 15.  On the question whether the proceeding under section 15 if pending was valid, we express no opinion at this stage. We  direct the Tribunal to submit a supplementary  statement of the case on the question whether the proceeding under 3 63 s.   10-A  was  started in the course of assessment  or  re- assessment   proceeding   commenced  under   s.   15.    The supplementary statement to be submitted to this Court within three  months  from the date on which the papers  reach  the Tribunal.   At  this  stage we express  no  opinion  on  the question  whether the High Court was right in  holding  that the proceeding under s. 15 was not competent. [The  following  judgment was delivered after  the  Tribunal submitted the supplementary statement as directed.] Grover,J.   In  these appeals this Court by an  order  dated January 21, 1971 directed the Income tax Appellate  Tribunal to  submit  a  supplementary statement of the  case  on  the question whether the proceedings under s. 10-A were  started in  the  course of assessment  or  reassessment  proceedings commenced  under s. 15 of the Excess Profits Tax  Act  1940, hereinafter called the "Ace’. The facts set out in the supplementary statement of the case may   be  recapitulated.   M/s.   Gurbux  Rai   Harbux   Rai hereinafter  referred to as the "assessee" is  a  registered firm  carrying  on  business in  piece  goods.   During  the chargeable  accounting period July 4, 1943 to June 21,  1944 and June 22, 1944 to July 10, 1945 Gurbux Rai and Harbux Rai (each  representing his joint family) were the two  partners of the assessee with -equal shares.  In the proceedings  for assessment of tax under the Act for the above two chargeable accounting  periods  the assessee informed the  Tax  Officer that the joint family of Gurbux Rai bad been partitioned and  ther e had been a reconstitution of the business of partnership    with effect from July 4, 1943.  According to the assessee the   constit ution of  the  firm after the partition was that in  the  firm  at Kanpur the former two partners were interested, their  share being  equal but in the business of the firm at  Farrukhabad there  were three partners, namely, Harbux Rai with a  share of 8 annas.  Mst.  Chameli Devi with a share of 4 annas  and Gopal  Das with a share of 4 annas.  In assessing tax  under the  Indian  Income Tax Act, 1922 for  the  assessment  year 1944-45  corresponding to the accounting year  from  October 19, 1942 to October 7, 1943 the Income Tax Officer held that the partition set up by Gurbux Rai could not be accepted  as the  same  had  been  made  to  avoid  proper  incidence  of taxation.  He, therefore, assessed the income as that of the assessee  and  not as the income of a separate  firm.   The- excess  profits tax being consequential upon the income  tax assessment,  the  Excess Profits Tax  Officer  assessed  the entire   income  of  the  two  businesses  at   Kanpur   and Farrukhabad in the hands of the assessee.  Against the order passed  by  the  Income  Tax  Officer  in  the  income   tax assessment 3 64 the  assessee  appealed to the Assistant  Commissioner.   On October  10,  1947,  that Officer  held  that  only  partial partition  had been effected in the joint family  of  Gurbux Rai.  This is what he held.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

             " ...... that partial partition in respect  of               movable property of Gurbux Rai was effected on               a  date somewhere near Asadh Samwat  at  2000,               from  which  date  Farrukhabad  business   was               conducted  by  a separate firm  consisting  of               Harbux Rai, Mst.  Chameli and Gopal Das." The  income tax assessments were consequently  modified  for the  two assessment years 1944-45 and 1945-46.   The  Excess Profits  Tax Officer also started proceedings under s.  10-A of the Act by serving a notice dated February 3, 1951 on the assessee.   The notice required the assessee to  show  cause why proper adjustment should not be made on the footing that the  main purpose of the partial partition of the family  of Gurbux  Rai  was the avoidance of ’the  excess  profits  tax liability.  By an order dated February 21, 1951 passed under s. 15 of the Act the Excess Profits Tax Officer modified the original  assessment  for  both  the  chargeable  accounting periods.   In the revised assessment he included the  income of the branch shop at Farrukhabad in the total income of the assessee  for  the purpose of assessment of  Excess  Profits tax. The  assessee  went up in appeal against the orders  of  the Excess  Profits  Tax  Officer  to  the  Appellate  Assistant Commissioner.  These appeals were dismissed.  The  Appellate Tribunal   confirmed   the   order   of   the   departmental authorities.  Thereafter the Tribunal referred the following two questions of law to the Allahabad High Court under s. 21 of the Act read with s. 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922.               (1)   "Whether   on  the  facts  and  in   the               circumstances  of  this  case  there  was  any               definite information within the meaning of  s.               15  by virtue of which the Excess Profits  Tax               Officer  was  competent to reopen  the  excess               profits tax assessments ?               (2)   Whether  in  the circumstances  of  this               case,  the  Excess  Profits  Tax  Officer  was               competent  to apply the provisions of s.  10-A               and  make necessary adjustments  in  pursuance               thereto  in  the revised assessment  under  s.               15." The High Court answered both the questions in the negative. Pursuant  to our previous order dated January 21,  1971  the Tribunal  has submitted the necessary material to enable  us to give our decision.  It has stated that the notices  under s. 15 of 365 the  Act  were  issued for both  the  chargeable  accounting periods and they were served on the assessee on February  3, 1951.   According to these notices the assessee  was  called upon  to  show  cause why provisions of s. 10A  of  the  Act should  not  be invoked.  The assessee submitted  a  written reply objecting to the applicability of s. 10-A.  The Excess Profits  Tax  Officer obtained approval  of  the  Inspecting Assistant  Commissioner and passed an order under s. 10A  on February   21,   1951.   According  to  the   Tribunal   the proceedings under s. 15 were pending for both the chargeable accounting periods when the proceedings under s. 10A of  the Act were started by the Excess Profits Tax Officer.  It  has been added that the notices under s. 15 and under s. 10 were issued  on the same date, namely, February 3, 1951 but  from the  order-sheet  it was clear that notice under s.  15  was issued  first  and  the,  notice under  s.  10A  was  issued thereafter. It   is   abundantly  clear  from  the  annexures   to   the supplementary statement of the case that on February 3, 1951

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

the  assessee’s counsel and K. S. Kalra and Gurbux Rai  were present before the Excess Profits Tax Officer.  Receipt of a notice  alleged to have been issued under s. 10A of the  Act previously was denied by them.  The Tax Officer proceeded to record the following order "Issue notice u/s 15 requiring the return to be filed within 60 days of the date of service.                         Sd. E.P.T.O.           Also issue notice u/s 10A as per draft.                        Sd. E.P.T.O." The  order-sheet  further shows that on  February  15,  1951 reply  to the notice was received along with the return  and it  was directed that the same be placed on the record.   It is  common ground that no objection was taken in this  reply that  the notice under s. 15 had not been issued before  the notice under s. 10A was issued. Section  15  of the Act provides that if in  consequence  of definite information which has come into the possession  the Excess Profits Tax Officer he discovers that profits of  any chargeable accounting period have escaped assessment,  etc., he may at -any ,time serve a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under  s. 13 and may proceed to assess or reassess the amount of  such profits  liable  lo  excess  profits  tax.   The  power   so conferred  can  be exercised in the course of  the  original assessment  or reassessment.  It is essential, according  to the  law laid down by this Court that before any action  can be  taken  or an order made under s. 10A there should  be  a proceeding  which  should  be  pending  for  assessment   or reassessment of LI 340Sup CI/71 366 excess  profits  tax.  In other words in  the  present  case before  the  provisions of S. 10A could be applied  the  Tax Officer  was  bound  to initiate proceedings  under  s.  15. According to what the Tribunal has said in the supplementary statement  of the case the proceedings under s. 15 had  been commenced  before  action was taken under s. 10A.   We  have already  referred to the orders which were made on  February 3, 195 1. It, is true that the orders to issue notices under s.  15 and s. 10A were made at the same time but the  notice under  S. 15 was ordered to be issued first. ,Thus  the  Tax Officer  had  initiated proceedings under s. 15  before  the notice  was  issued  under s. 10A and it would  be  a’  mere hypertechnicality  to  say that simply  because  the  notice under  s. 15 and the notice under s. 10A were issued on  the same  date the requirements of the law were  not  satisfied. The  finding  of  the Tribunal also is  to  the  effect,  as noticed  before, that proceedings under s. 15  were  pending when  the proceedings under s. 10A were taken.   The  second question, therefore, had to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. On  the first question the submission of Mr. M.  C.  Chagla. for  the assessee is that there was no definite  information which  had,  come into possession of the  Tax  Officer  from which  it could be said that he had discovered that  profits of  the  relevant chargeable accounting period  had  escaped assessment.    We  are  unable  to  agree.   The   Appellate Assistant Commissioner had made an order on October 10, 1947 in the proceedings relating to the assessment of income  tax of the assessee that there had been only a partial partition in respect of the movable property (business) of Gurbux Rai. That  was  certainly  an information  which  came  into  the possession of the Excess Profits Tax Officer not because  of any change of opinion by himself but because of the decision

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

of  the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the  income  tax proceedings.   This  Court has consistently  held  that  the Income  Tax  Officer  would have  jurisdiction  to  initiate proceedings under s. 34 (1) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, which  is in pari materia with s. 15 of the Act if he  acted on  information received from the decision of  the  superior authorities or the court even in the assessment proceedings. (See R. B. Bansilal Abirchand Firm v. Commissioner of Income Tax,  M.P.(1)  and  Assistant  Controller  of  Estate  Duty, Hyderabad  v. Nawab Sir Osman Ali Khan Bahadur,  H.E.H.  The Nizam of Hyderabad & Others.(2) It has next been urged  that the alleged object of having a partial partition, namely, of reducing the liability to excess profits --ax had never been examined  by  the Appellate Assistant  Commissioner  in  the Income  tax proceedings and therefore it could not  be  said that  there  had been escapement of income as  a  result  of information (1) 70 I.T.R. 74. (2) 72 I.T.R. 376 367 derived   from   his-  order.    The   Appellate   Assistant Commissioner  apparently  did  not  go  into  that  question because the proceeding& before him related to assessment  of income, tax.  Section 10A of the Act is a special  provision which  deals  with  the transactions designed  to  avoid  or reduce  liability  to excess profits tax.   The  information which  came  into  possession of  the  Excess  Profits  Tax. Officer  of  partial  partition  having  been  effected  was relevant for the purpose of s. 15 and once he had  initiated proceedings  under that section he was  perfectly  competent and  had jurisdiction to, examine for the purpose of s.  10A whether partial partition had been effected for avoidance or reduction  of liability to excess, profits tax.  The  first. question,  therefore, should have been answered against  the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The  appeals  succeed  and  are  allowed  with  costs.   The answers, to both the questions are returned in favour of the Revenue.  Onehearing fee. V.P.S.                      Appeals allowed. 368