Estate duty reopening fails on change of opinion, while notice to one accountable person remains valid under the statutory scheme

Notice to one accountable person was held valid because the estate duty scheme casts a duty on each accountable person to render an account, and the objection was also not raised at the earlier stages. Reopening of the estate duty assessment was held invalid because the statutory reopening provision did not require income-tax style recording of reasons, yet the reopening was based only on material already disclosed in the original statement of account. Since the alleged escapement depended on the same facts already before the authority, the reassessment amounted to a mere change of opinion and was cancelled.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether notice under the estate duty reopening provision addressed to one accountable person was valid where there were more accountable persons. (ii) Whether the reopening of the estate duty assessment was valid under the statutory reopening provision.

Issue (i): Whether notice under the estate duty reopening provision addressed to one accountable person was valid where there were more accountable persons.

Analysis: The objection was not taken at the earlier stages and was not even included in the present grounds of appeal. Even on merits, the estate duty scheme places a duty on each accountable person to render an account, and the statutory liability is materially different from the position under the income-tax law. The provisions relied upon from other tax statutes were treated as inapposite, while the estate duty provisions were read as permitting notice to any one of the accountable persons.

Conclusion: The notice addressed to one accountable person was valid and the objection fails.

Issue (ii): Whether the reopening of the estate duty assessment was valid under the statutory reopening provision.

Analysis: The reopening provision under the Estate Duty Act did not require the recording of reasons in the manner contemplated by the income-tax reopening provision. On the facts, the materials on which reopening was founded were already disclosed in the original statement of account, including the deceased's agricultural character, partnership interest, will, agricultural deposits, and details of land and valuation. The supposed escapement regarding standing crop was not supported, because the crop cycle made the alleged August standing crop unsustainable. The reassessment was therefore based on a review of the same material already before the authority, which amounted to a mere change of opinion and not valid reopening on new information.

Conclusion: The reopening was invalid and the reassessment was cancelled.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to reopening succeeded, while the challenge to notice did not; the assessment was annulled on the ground that the reopening itself was not legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Estate Duty Act, reopening cannot be sustained on a mere change of opinion on facts already disclosed, and a notice to one accountable person may be sufficient where the statutory scheme casts a duty on each accountable person to account for the estate.

---