Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THE Tribunal has submitted this statement of the case for the opinion of this court on the following question of law: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the proceedings of reassessment under Section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, were invalid and without jurisdiction ?"
(2.) SHRI Kanhaiya Lal died on 3rd April, 1962. His widow, Smt. Sarla Devi, filed a return under the Estate Duty Act, 1953. She claimed, inter alia, that her husband had one-fourth share in the coparcenary properties. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Meerut, felt that the deceased's share in the coparcenary properties was half because the deceased was the sole surviving coparcener in the bigger Hindu undivided family. He called upon the accountable person by a notice dated February 5, 1963, to show cause why the deceased's share should not be taken as one-half. The accountable person filed a reply on 23rd February, 1963, and pointed out that her husband's share would only be one-fourth. The Assistant Controller examined the matter and upheld the contention of the accountable person. On scrutiny later, the Assistant Controller found that on a correct view of Hindu law the share of the deceased in the coparcenary properties would be, half. He issued notice to the accountable person under Section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act for reopening the proceedings. The accountable person filed a reply stating that there was no new information in the possession of the Assistant Controller and, therefore, he had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Clause (b) of Section 59. The Assistant Controller repelled the preliminary objection. He held that according to Hindu law the correct share of the deceased in the bigger Hindu undivided family would be one-half and not one-fourth. He further held that in this case the correct position of law came to the notice of the Assistant Controller subsequent to the completion of the original assessment and information, that is, the correct position of law so known led to the belief that the property had escaped assessment on account of adopting wrong share of the deceased in the bigger Hindu undivided family. He, accordingly, included one-half share for assessment purposes. The accountable person went up in appeal. The Zonal Appellate Controller held that the facts of the case clearly go to establish that subsequent to the order of assessment on 24th July, 1963, there was no information obtained. This notice for reassessment was invalid and bad in law. He further held that in view of the fact that reopening of the assessment itself had been held to be invalid it was not necessary to decide as to what would be the correct share of the deceased in the coparcenary property. The appeal was allowed.
(3.) THE department took the dispute to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. THE Tribunal held that in the instant case "information" was obtained by the Assistant Controller from other enquiries or research into the law made by him subsequent to the previous assessment. THE Assistant Controller had jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Clause (b) of Section 59. Since the Zonal Appellate Controller had not decided the question as to the correct share, the case was remanded to him for a decision of this issue in accordance with law. At the instance of the assessee the Tribunal has submitted the question of law mentioned above.;