https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71637 Reopening under section 59 of the Estate Duty Act was invalid because the original assessment had already examined the relevant facts, including firm dissolution, goodwill, property valuation, share valuation and the gold bond exemption. The reassessment was based only on an internal note seeking further verification, which amounted to suspicion and a fresh view on the same material rather than concrete information showing escapement of duty. As the accountable person had disclosed the primary facts fully and truly, there was no jurisdictional basis for reopening under section 59(a) or section 59(b). The reassessment attempt was therefore unsustainable. en-us Mon, 16 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:35:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71637 Reopening under section 59 of the Estate Duty Act was invalid because the original assessment had already examined the relevant facts, including firm dissolution, goodwill, property valuation, share valuation and the gold bond exemption. The reassessment was based only on an internal note seeking further verification, which amounted to suspicion and a fresh view on the same material rather than concrete information showing escapement of duty. As the accountable person had disclosed the primary facts fully and truly, there was no jurisdictional basis for reopening under section 59(a) or section 59(b). The reassessment attempt was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 16 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71637