Audit objection cannot justify estate duty reopening where the authority merely changes opinion on share valuation.

A reopening under section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 must rest on information that enables the authority to form a reason to believe that estate duty has escaped assessment or been under-assessed. Here, the recorded reasons showed that the notice was issued only because a revenue audit objected to the earlier valuation of shares. A revenue audit objection, by itself, is not information for reopening, and a mere reassessment of the valuation amounts to a change of opinion. The Bombay High Court held that such a change of opinion cannot satisfy the statutory requirement, so the reopening notice was unsustainable and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a notice reopening estate duty assessment under section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 could be sustained on the basis of a revenue audit objection relating to valuation of shares.

Analysis: Reopening under the provision required information enabling the authority to form a reason to believe that property chargeable to estate duty had escaped assessment or been under-assessed. The recorded reasons showed that the reopening was triggered by mistakes pointed out in audit concerning the earlier valuation of shares. A revenue audit objection, by itself, did not constitute information for the purpose of reopening. What followed was merely a change of opinion on the valuation details, and a change of opinion was not information within the meaning of the section.

Conclusion: The reopening notice was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An audit objection does not amount to information for reopening an assessment where the authority merely reconsiders and changes its earlier opinion on valuation.

---