Fresh information, not mere change of opinion, is required to reopen estate duty reassessments under the Act.

Reopening of estate duty assessment under section 59(b) requires fresh information coming to the assessing authority after the original assessment; it cannot rest on a mere change of opinion about facts already disclosed. Because the land value had already been disclosed in the estate duty proceedings and the higher figure in wealth-tax proceedings flowed from a different valuation rule, no external new information was available, so the reassessment was unjustified and its cancellation was sustained. By contrast, the Tribunal's presumption that the original order fell under section 59(a) was supported by material and was not arbitrary, leaving the accountable person's position intact.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal's presumption that the order was passed under section 59(a) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, was based on relevant material or was arbitrary. (ii) Whether reopening of the estate duty assessment under section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal's presumption that the order was passed under section 59(a) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, was based on relevant material or was arbitrary.

Analysis: The material placed before the Tribunal did not disclose any factual basis to dislodge its inference regarding the source and character of the original order. No contrary factual error was shown in the materials relied upon by the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The presumption was held to be supported by material and not arbitrary, in favour of the accountable person.

Issue (ii): Whether reopening of the estate duty assessment under section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, was justified.

Analysis: Reopening under section 59(b) requires information coming to the assessing authority after the original assessment, not merely a different view on the same disclosed facts. The land value of the firm had already been disclosed in the estate duty proceedings on the basis of the books of account, and the higher figure shown in wealth-tax proceedings arose from the distinct valuation rule applicable under the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. Since no fresh external information had come into the Assistant Controller's possession, the reassessment rested only on a change of opinion.

Conclusion: The reopening under section 59(b) was held to be unjustified and the cancellation of the reassessment was sustained, in favour of the accountable person.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered entirely against the Revenue, and the Tribunal's view was upheld on both questions.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment under section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, is permissible only on the basis of fresh information not already within the assessing authority's possession, and not on a mere change of opinion about disclosed facts or valuation.

---