Audit objection is not fresh information; reopening a completed assessment on known material is a change of opinion and can be quashed in writ.

An audit objection based on material already within the assessing authority's knowledge does not amount to "information" under section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, because reopening on that basis is only a change of opinion and lacks jurisdiction. A notice founded on such reopening may be challenged under article 226, since the existence of an appellate remedy does not bar writ relief where the foundational jurisdiction for reassessment is absent. The completed assessment could therefore not be reopened on the audit-based notice.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an audit report based on material already within the assessing authority's knowledge constituted "information" under section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 so as to justify reopening of the completed assessment; (ii) whether a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable to quash the notice despite the availability of appellate remedy.

Issue (i): Whether an audit report based on material already within the assessing authority's knowledge constituted "information" under section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 so as to justify reopening of the completed assessment.

Analysis: The original assessment had already taken note of the property valuation for wealth-tax purposes and of the subsisting lease, and the impugned notice was issued only after the audit objection. The material on which reopening was proposed was not new and was already within the respondent's knowledge at the time of the original assessment. Reopening on that basis amounted only to a change of opinion and not to receipt of fresh information within the meaning of section 59(b).

Conclusion: The audit report did not constitute "information" under section 59(b), and the notice for reopening was without jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable to quash the notice despite the availability of appellate remedy.

Analysis: A notice issued without jurisdiction may be challenged at the threshold under article 226, particularly where the impugned action would subject the assessee to unnecessary reassessment proceedings. The statutory appellate remedy did not bar interference in a case where the very foundation for reopening was absent.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the alternative remedy did not preclude relief.

Final Conclusion: The reopening notice was quashed, and the assessee obtained protection against further reassessment proceedings founded on the impugned audit-based notice.

Ratio Decidendi: Reopening of a completed tax or estate duty assessment cannot be founded on an audit objection where the supposed information was already within the assessing authority's knowledge at the time of the original assessment, because such reopening is merely a change of opinion and is without jurisdiction.

---