Reassessment cannot rest on a new alternative ground first raised in reference without record support.

A reassessment based on alleged non-disclosure could not be sustained where the assessment records showed that balance-sheets and relevant particulars had already been furnished and the original valuation had been accepted on that basis. The alternative statutory ground, based on information allegedly already in the officer's possession, was not pleaded, investigated, or made the basis of the reassessment before the lower authorities. In reference jurisdiction, a new factual or legal foundation requiring record support cannot be introduced for the first time. On that footing, the Tribunal's cancellation of the reassessment was upheld and the matter was decided in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment could be sustained on the footing that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material particulars necessary for the assessment, and whether the Revenue could invoke the alternative statutory ground based on information in the Officer's possession under the reassessment provision.

Analysis: The assessment records and the findings of the lower authorities showed that the balance-sheets and relevant particulars had already been furnished before the Gift-tax Officer, and the original valuation had been accepted on that basis. The reference was confined to the question whether there had been a failure to disclose material particulars, and the matter had been consistently contested and decided only on that footing before the authorities below. The alternative ground based on information in possession, though discussed in general legal terms, had not been pleaded, investigated, or made the basis of the reassessment proceedings before the lower authorities. In a reference jurisdiction, a new factual and legal basis not raised below cannot be introduced for the first time when it requires a foundation not present on the record.

Conclusion: The reassessment could not be upheld on the alternative ground, and the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the reassessment; the answer was against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

---