Fresh material required for reassessment; a later valuation on the same facts could not justify reopening under the Gift-tax Act.

Reassessment under the Gift-tax Act was not justified where the Gift-tax Officer already had the relevant material at the original assessment stage, including the property details, construction cost, and earlier wealth-tax records. A later higher valuation in wealth-tax proceedings was not fresh information for reopening. Reopening on the same facts amounted only to a change of opinion, which could not confer jurisdiction to reassess under section 16(1)(b). The reassessment was therefore invalid because no new material or information had come into the officer's possession after the original assessment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment of the gifted property's value under the Gift-tax Act was valid when no new facts or information had come to the Gift-tax Officer's possession and the original assessment had been completed on the material already on record.

Analysis: The return had been accepted in the original assessment on the basis of the details furnished by the assessee, and the relevant facts, including the nature of the property, its cost of construction, and the earlier wealth-tax material, were already available with the Gift-tax Officer. The later higher valuation reached in wealth-tax proceedings did not constitute fresh information within the meaning of the reopening provision. Reopening on the same set of facts amounted only to a new look at the old material and, therefore, to a mere change of opinion, which could not justify reassessment.

Conclusion: The reassessment was invalid and the reopening under section 16(1)(b) of the Gift-tax Act was unjustified.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment cannot be sustained in the absence of fresh material or information subsequent to the original assessment, and a mere change of opinion on the same facts does not confer jurisdiction to reopen the assessment.

---