Estate duty reopening justified where undisclosed acquisition references and under-valuation showed property had escaped assessment.

Non-disclosure of the pendency of references challenging acquisition awards was a material omission because it could affect valuation of the acquired lands for estate duty, and reopening was justified on that basis. The right to receive compensation for acquired land was treated as a present property right arising on acquisition; later enhancement did not create a new right, but it confirmed that the original valuation was understated. On these facts, the authority had reason to believe that property chargeable to estate duty had escaped assessment through under-valuation, so the reopening notice was within jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice issued under section 59(a) of the Estate Duty Act for reopening the estate duty assessment was valid, specifically whether the accountable person had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment and whether the right to enhanced compensation formed property liable to estate duty.

Analysis: The estate duty assessment had proceeded on the compensation awarded by the Special Deputy Collector for lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. Before the assessment, references under section 18 of that Act had been filed against the awards, but the enhanced compensation was determined only later by the civil court. The Court held that the fact of filing references against the awards was not merely inferential but a primary and material fact, because its disclosure would have affected the valuing authority's view of the market value of the acquired lands. The Court also held that the right to receive compensation for acquired land is a present property right arising from the acquisition itself, and the later enhancement does not create a new and independent right. On the facts, the large enhancement showed that the original valuation was far below the real market value, giving the Controller reason to believe that property chargeable to estate duty had escaped assessment by under-valuation.

Conclusion: The notice under section 59(a) was held to be within jurisdiction, and the challenge to reopening failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In estate duty proceedings, non-disclosure of a material fact that would affect valuation, including the pendency of references challenging acquisition awards, justifies reopening where the original assessment was based on an under-valuation of property that had already accrued as a present right on acquisition.

---