Reassessment cannot rest on an audit party's legal opinion; fresh information is required to reopen estate duty valuation.

An audit note and a later departmental instruction on valuation did not amount to "information" for reopening an estate duty assessment under section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The High Court held that an audit party's opinion on a point of law, or a mere change of view on the correct legal position, cannot by itself justify reassessment; reopening requires fresh factual or legal information not already available to the assessing authority. On that basis, the reassessment notice was held bad in law and the challenge to reopening succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the audit note and the Board's instruction constituted "information" so as to justify reopening the estate duty assessment under section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.

Analysis: The reopening was founded on the view that the shares had been wrongly valued and should have been valued under section 37 of the Estate Duty Act. The material relied upon was an audit note and a later Board instruction, both of which reflected an opinion on the correct legal position and a change of view regarding valuation of restricted shares. An audit party's opinion on a point of law does not amount to information for the purpose of reassessment, although communication of facts or law may. A valid reopening requires fresh or subsequent information, not a mere change in legal opinion already available to the assessing authority.

Conclusion: The notice of reassessment was not supported by valid information under section 59(b) and was therefore bad in law. The challenge to reopening succeeded, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An audit note or departmental opinion on the interpretation or applicability of law does not constitute "information" for reassessment; only fresh factual or legal information, not a mere change of opinion, can justify reopening.

---