Audit information can justify reopening, while contiguous dwelling units in one compound may qualify as one residential house for exemption.

Audit information was treated as factual material, not a mere opinion on law, so reopening under section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 was held valid and the change-of-opinion challenge failed. Two separately numbered but contiguous units were also held to form one residential house where they lay within one compound, shared common boundaries, and had been converted into a single dwelling; separate municipal numbers were not decisive. On that basis, exemption under section 33(1)(n) was allowed for both units as one house, giving the accountable person partial relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment under section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 was valid when the original assessment had been completed under section 58(3) of that Act and the reopening was founded on audit information; (ii) Whether two separately numbered but contiguous units formed one residential house for exemption under section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment under section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 was valid when the original assessment had been completed under section 58(3) of that Act and the reopening was founded on audit information.

Analysis: The audit note in the present case was treated as factual information and not as an opinion on law. In the light of the later Supreme Court view that factual audit information can constitute information for reopening, the reassessment was held to be within the scope of section 59. The objection that the reopening was merely a change of opinion did not succeed on the facts found.

Conclusion: The reopening and the reassessment were held to be valid.

Issue (ii): Whether two separately numbered but contiguous units formed one residential house for exemption under section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.

Analysis: The two units were found to be within one compound, having common boundaries, one in front and the other at the rear, and had been converted by the deceased into a single residential structure. The governing principle was that self-contained dwelling units contiguous and situated in the same compound with a unit of structure can constitute one house for exemption purposes. Applying that principle, the separate municipal numbers were not ative of separate houses.

Conclusion: The assessee was held entitled to exemption under section 33(1)(n) in respect of both units as constituting one house.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was sustained on the reopening issue, but the substantive exemption claim succeeded, resulting in partial relief to the accountable person.

Ratio Decidendi: Factual audit information may justify reopening of an assessment, and contiguous self-contained dwelling units within the same compound and having a unit of structure may constitute one house for exemption where the statute grants relief for one residential house.

---