Recorded reasons are mandatory for estate duty reassessment, but they need not accompany the notice at the pre-notice stage.

A reassessment under section 59 of the Estate Duty Act requires the competent authority to record reasons before initiating action on the basis of a belief that property has escaped assessment. Those recorded reasons, however, need not be communicated with the notice at the pre-notice stage, because the proceeding remains administrative until the accountable person responds. Disclosure may be sought later, and the notice can be challenged if no reasons were recorded or if the reasons are irrelevant. On the stated facts, refusal to furnish reasons immediately did not vitiate the notice, and the reopening was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether, before issuing notice under section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the competent authority is bound to communicate the recorded reasons to the accountable person; and whether refusal to disclose those reasons vitiates the notice.

Analysis: Section 59 permits assessment or reassessment where the authority has reason to believe that property chargeable to estate duty has escaped assessment. The expression 'has reason to believe' requires the authority to record reasons before initiating action, but the recorded reasons need not be supplied along with the notice. At the pre-notice stage, the proceeding remains administrative in character, and the accountable person cannot insist on disclosure merely to challenge the notice without first responding to it. The accountable person may, after filing a reply, seek disclosure and may challenge the notice if no reasons were recorded or if the reasons disclosed are irrelevant. Applying these principles, the refusal to furnish reasons at the stage sought was not illegal, and the disclosed ground relating to omission of the deceased's share in the bagichi was germane to the reopening.

Conclusion: The notice under section 59 was not invalid for non-communication of reasons at that stage, and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was found to be without merit, and the impugned reopening action was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Under a reassessment provision requiring 'reason to believe', recording of reasons before initiation is mandatory, but those reasons need not be communicated with the notice; disclosure becomes relevant only at the subsequent stage or when judicially challenged on the ground that no relevant reasons existed.

---