Section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 cannot be given retrospective operation to effect assessments which had become final before its enactment, and the opinion expressed by the appellate authority in the assessment order does not constitute information within the meaning of Section 59 (b) of the Act.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the order of our learned brother Chandrasekhara Sastry, J. in W. P. No. 667 of 1960 quashing the notice of the Assistant Controller dated 12-8-1960 for the levy of enhanced Estate Duty under the provisions of Section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.

( 2 ) IT may be noted at the very outset that Section 59 has been introduced by the Estate Duty (Amendment) Act of 1958 and came into force on 1-7-1960.

( 3 ) THE proceedings before the Assistant Controller pertain to one Ghousunnisa Begum, a step sister of the Nizam, who died on 30-11-1955. She was receiving a sum of Rs. 1,000. 00 a month from the trust fund created by the Nizam on 6-8-1950, referred to as H. E. H. the Nizams Miscellaneous Trust, for the benefit of his family and dependents. It would suffice to note that Ghousunnisa was receiving this allowance from the trust fund set apart under the Trust which consisted of (1) A loan of Hali Sicca, Rs. 4,5000,000/- deposed with the Government of Hyderabad bearing interest at 1 1/4 per cent (2) A Government of India loan of the face value of Rs. 25,00,000. 00 bearing interest at 2 3/4 per cent, and (3) 3 % Government of India loan, Rs. 1,970-75 of the face value of Rs. 8,00,000. 00 Two other step sisters of the Nizam were also receiving like amounts from the Trust fund; but we are concerned with their affairs now. The Trustee were the accountable persons under the Act. They filed returns under the Estate Duty Act on the death of Ghousunnisa Begum. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Hyderabad, by his order dated 31-3-1958 assessed the value of the property leviable to Estate Duty at Rs. 6,61,347 and an amount of Rs. 83,519-40 np. was assessed as the Estate Duty payable. The accountable persons appealed to the Central Board of Revenue without success, the assessment having been confirmed by an order of the Central Board of Revenue dated 6-8-1959.

( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY Section 59 was enacted giving powers to the Controller (which term included the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty) to reassess the property liable to duty under certain conditions which we would presently refer. Purporting to act under the said provision, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty issued a notice assessing the property deceased at Rs. 7,19,811. 00 as chargeable to Estate Duty. It is that notice that was impugned in the writ petition on two main grounds; firstly that Section 59, which came into force on 1 after the assessment was confined by the appellate authority, could not be given retrospective operation so as to effect assessments which had become final before that date; and secondly, that assuming that there was such power, there was no material before the Assistant Controller to act in the purported exercise of such power. Both these grounds of attack were upheld by our learned brother and he issued an order quashing the said notice. The Department is the appellant.

( 5 ) SRI Kondaiah for the department has assailed the findings of our learned brother on both points. The first point that he raised was that it was the date of notice that was material, i. e. , 1 2-8-1960 and that Section 59, which had come into force by then, could be applied. According to him Section 59 must be deemed to have been part of the enactment and the provision could be availed of for reassessment irrespective of any prior assessment which was made subject only to the provision that the proceedings of reassessment should be commenced within 3 years of the date of assessment as provided under Section 73-A of the Act.

( 6 ) NO direct authority has been cited to us in support of the proposition contended for. But the learned counsel has relied on certain observations in Income-tax Officer, Companies District 1. Calcutta v. Calcutta Discount Co. , Ltd. , (1953) 23 ITR 471 at p. 482 : (AIR 1953 Cal 721 at p. 724) dealing with Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, which is in pari materia. It was observed in that case thus :"the pla