Audit objection on legal exemption scope cannot by itself justify reassessment under estate duty reopening rules.

An internal audit party's opinion on the legal scope of exemption for land appurtenant to a residential house does not constitute "information" for reopening reassessment under section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The reassessment notice was based only on the audit objection that the entire surrounding land could not be treated as exempt, and no independent factual material was shown. Applying the same principle recognised under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Court held that a mere audit view on a point of law cannot satisfy the jurisdictional condition for reopening. The reassessment notice was therefore without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether an audit objection regarding the scope of exemption for land appurtenant to a residential house could constitute "information" sufficient to justify notice for reassessment under section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.

Analysis: The notice for reassessment was founded solely on the audit view that the entire land surrounding the residential house could not be treated as exempt land appurtenant to the house. The Court applied the principle that an internal audit party's opinion on a point of law does not amount to "information" for reopening proceedings, following the analogous rule under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. As the reassessment notice rested only on that audit opinion and no independent factual information was shown, the jurisdictional requirement for reopening was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The audit objection did not constitute valid information under section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and the reassessment notice was without jurisdiction.

---