9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Reopening of assessment under section 59 of the Estate Duty Act without jurisdiction. Analysis: The appeal by the Revenue challenged the order of the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty (CED) regarding the reopening of the assessment under section 59 of the Estate Duty Act. The original assessment accepted a valuation for a house property based on a registered valuer's certificate. However, an internal audit later claimed that the property was underassessed due to not considering a larger plot area as separable. Consequently, the Asstt. CED reopened the assessment and included the value of the surplus land in the supplementary assessment. On appeal, the Appellate CED canceled the supplementary assessment, stating that the reopening under section 59 was unjustified. The Appellate CED emphasized that the audit objection did not provide any new information beyond what was already in the valuation report. The Department appealed this decision, citing a Supreme Court case where it was held that audit parties could draw attention to factual mistakes to justify reopening assessments. The Accountable Person supported the Appellate CED's decision, arguing that the reassessment was merely a change of opinion without fresh information. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellate CED, noting that all relevant information was available during the original assessment. The Tribunal emphasized that section 59 did not allow for a fresh application of judgment but required genuinely new information. As the audit objection did not present new facts but merely a different opinion, the reassessment was deemed based on a change of opinion, leading to the cancellation of the assessment. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Appellate CED's decision to cancel the supplementary assessment due to the lack of fresh information justifying the reassessment under section 59 of the Estate Duty Act.
|
