Audit objection cannot be treated as fresh information for reassessment when it only reflects a change of opinion.

Audit objections cannot, by themselves, furnish "information" for reopening an estate duty assessment where they merely express a legal view on the effect of existing facts. The original assessment had already considered the deceased's interest in Hindu undivided family property and brought one-half share to duty. Reopening on the same material was therefore a change of opinion, not a valid reassessment based on fresh information. The audit note, which treated the earlier assessment as erroneous because the deceased was the sole surviving male coparcener, was held insufficient under section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and the reassessment was bad in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment under section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 could validly be reopened on the basis of an audit objection and whether such audit note constituted "information" within the meaning of the provision.

Analysis: The original assessment had already considered the deceased's interest in the Hindu undivided family property and assessed one-half share to estate duty. The reopening was triggered by an audit note which expressed a view on the legal effect of the deceased being the sole surviving male coparcener and treated the earlier assessment as a mistake apparent from record. The governing principle is that an audit party may draw attention to a factual or legal point, but its opinion on the application or interpretation of law cannot itself amount to information for reassessment. Where the assessing authority has already applied its mind to the relevant facts, a later reopening on the same material amounts to a change of opinion and is not supported by fresh information.

Conclusion: The audit note did not constitute valid information under section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and the reopening of the assessment was bad in law.

---