Estate duty reassessment fails where reopening rests on an audit opinion and no fresh information exists.

Reopening of an estate duty assessment based only on an audit objection was invalid because no fresh factual material had been received by the assessing authority. The High Court treated the attempted reassessment as a mere change of opinion on the same material, and held that an internal audit party's view on a point of law is not "information" for reopening purposes. In the absence of any new information or statutory basis to compel reopening in that manner, the reassessment was quashed and the challenge succeeded against the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reopening of the estate duty assessment was valid in law when it was based on an audit objection and no fresh information was shown to have been received.

Analysis: The reassessment was initiated after the original view on the passing of the estate had already been considered on the existing facts. The record showed no new factual material reaching the Assistant Controller, and the reopening was prompted by an audit direction. An internal audit party's opinion on a point of law does not constitute "information" for reopening, and a mere change of opinion on the same material cannot justify reassessment. The absence of any corresponding statutory power in the estate duty framework to compel reopening in the manner attempted also supported the conclusion that the reassessment was not lawfully triggered.

Conclusion: The reopening of the assessment was not valid in law and is held against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment was quashed because it rested on an impermissible audit-driven change of opinion rather than on fresh information.

Ratio Decidendi: An audit party's opinion on a point of law, without fresh factual information, does not amount to information authorising reassessment, and reopening on the same material is invalid as a mere change of opinion.

---