Case: Assistant Controller of Estate-Duty, Hyderabad Vs. Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan Bahadur, H. E. H. The Nizam of Hyderabad, and Others

The facts briefly are these. H. E. H. the Nizam of Hyderabad had, by a deed of trust dated August 6, 1950, created a trust known as " H. E. H. the Nizams Miscellaneous Trust " for the benefit of his family and dependants. One of the beneficiaries was Sahebzadi Ghousunnisa Begum, a stepsister of the Nizam, to whom an annuity of Rs. 12, 000 had to be given. She died on November 10, 1955. The property passing on her death became, liable to estate duty under the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (XXXIV of 1953), hereinafter called " the Act ". The trust fund consisted of three, items one of which was a loan deposited with the Government of Hyderabad bearing interest at 1 1/4%. The main dispute before the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty related to the correct valuation of the aforesaid loan. He valued it at Rs. 2, 01, 30, 000 and, after making the other necessary calculations, the net market value of the estate of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 6, 61, 347 on which demand was created at Rs. 83, 519.40. The trustees preferred an appeal before the Central Board of Revenue disputing the correctness of the valuation of the estate of the deceased (Begum) made by the Assistant Controller. The Board of Revenue in its order dated August 6, 1959, expressed the view that the securities in question had not been overvalued but had been undervalued. According to the Board the correct valuation should have been Rs. 3, 06, 83, 760 ; in other words, its opinion was that the face value of the securities being Rs. 4.5 crores, the market value should have been at the rate of 78% whereas the basis adopted by the Assistant Controller came to 52%. He proceeded to say towards the concluding portion of his order : " However I find that there is some force in the argument advanced by the appellants representative against any enhancement being made by the Board in appeal proceedings. I refrain therefore from making the proposed enhancement in the value of the securities and confirm the value adopted by the Assistant ControllerThe Act was amended by the Estate Duty (Amendment) Act, 1958, hereinafter called " the amendment Act." By section 21 of the amendment Act, sections 56 to 65 of the principal Act were substituted by the new sections. The new section 59 for the first time gave power to the Controller of Estate Duty to assess or reassess property escaping assessment. It is common ground that the amendment Act came into force on July, 1 1960. The Assistant Controller issued a notice on August 12, 1960, to the trustees in exercise of the powers conferred by the new section 59 of the Act. In that notice it was stated that he had reasons to believe that property chargeable under the Act to estate duty had escaped assessment by reason of undervaluation and, therefore, a statement of account was called for in respect of the market value of the securities of Rs. 4.5 crores. On September 20, 1960, the present respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the validity and legality of the notice issued under section 59 of the Act and praying that it be quashed. In the writ petition two main points were raised : the first was that section 59 had been introduced by the Amendment Act and it could not be made applicable to assessments which had become final before July 1, 1960, the date on which the amendment Act came into force. Secondly, the conditions laid down in section 59 had not been fulfilled. It had not been stated what information had been received or was in the possession of the Assistant Controller in consequence of which he had reason to believe that property had been undervalued. It was contended that mere change of opinion would not justify the reopening of assessment. The present appellant in the return filed to the writ petition in the High Court claimed that section 59 as introduced by the Amendment Act was applicable and that the Central Board of Revenue had expressed the opinion that the correct value of the securities should be 78% of the face value as against 52% as adopted in the assessment order and the appellate order had been received on August 15, 1959, and therefore, the appellant was fully justified in issuing the notice as he had reason to believe by virtue of information which had come into his possession that the securities had been undervalued. The learned single judge hold that the appellant had no jurisdiction under section 59, as newly introduced by the Amendment Act, to reopen a matter which had been completed and which had became final before July 1, 1960. On the second point he was of the view that the opinion of the Central Board of Revenue did not amount to " information " within the meaning of section 59(b) of the Act. The writ petition, Consequently, was allowed. The appellant preferred an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent which was disposed of by a Division Bench on July 2, 1964. The Bench did not decide the first point, namely, whether section 59 as newly introduced by the Amendment Act was applicable or not and rested its decision on the second point. It was held that a mere expression of opinion by the Central Board of Revenue did not amount to " information " within the meaning of section 59(b) of the Act

Court's reasoning:
s then contended that sections 33B and 35 confer ample powers on the specified authorities to revise thes orders and to rectify mistakes respectively and so it would be legitimate to construe the word  information  in section 34(1)(b) strictly and to confine it to information in regard to facts or particulars.This argument also is not valid. If the word  information  in its plain grammatical meaning includes information as to facts as well as information as to the state of the law, it would be unreasonable to limit to information as to the facts on the extraneous consideration that some cases of assessment which need to be revised or rectified on the ground of mistake of law may conceivably be covered by sections 33B andthe latest decision of this court in R. B. Bansilal Abirchand Firm v. Commissioner ofwhen the first assessment of the assessees income was made by theOfficer the latters information was that the assessee was a partner in another concern known as Bisesar House and that the interest had been received from that concern in the capacity of a partner. It was only after the Tribunal and the High Court gave their decision in the proceedings for assessment to tax of Bisesar House that theOfficer came to know that the interest was not being received by thein the capacity of a partner but in its capacity of a financier advancing monies to Bisesar House as a banker. It was held that theOfficer had not acted on his own initiative or on the change of his own opinion when he took proceedings under section 34(1)(b). The correct position had been brought to his notice by the decision of the Tribunal and the High Court and that must be held to be " information " as a consequence of which he came to believe that the provisions of section 34(1)(b) wereWe are unable to agree. When the expression " information " is understood in the sense of instruction or knowledge derived from an external source concerning facts or particulars or as to law relating to a matter bearing on the assessment, it is difficult to see how determination of valuation for the purpose of assessment of estate duty would not squarely fall within the meaning of the expression " information " in the context in which it occurs in section 59 of the Act. It has not been disputed, and can indeed not be disputed, that the provisions of section 59 are in pari materia with section 34 of theAct, 1922, and section 147 of theAct, 1961. The opinion expressed by the Board of Revenue, in the present case, as to valuation, was clearly " information " in the sense in which that expres. sion has been held to have been used in these enactments. The view of the High Court on this point cannot be sustained for the aforesaid reasons4. The Division Bench did not decide the first point which related to the applicability of section 59 to assessments completed before the amendment Act came into force.