Judgment :- 1. The reference has been made to this Court of the following three questions under S.54 of the Estate Duty Act: "(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the reopening of the assessment under S.59(b) of the Estate Duty Act was valid? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstance of the case, the entirety of the goodwill of the firm, M/s. Pulavar shoe Mart, of which the deceased was partner, belonged only to the deceased and passed on bis death? (3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, in arriving at the superprofits of the firm in computing the value of its goodwill, income-tax payable or paid should be excluded?" The facts which have given rise to these questions are the following. 2. One Gulam Moideen died on 2-9-1972. He was a partner of the firm M/s. Pulavar Shoe Mart. This firm was constituted under the deed of partnership, which is annexure A in the case. It was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of aluminium vessels. Besides Gulam Moideen there were two other partners, they being his brother and son. They were only working partners who brought in no capital of their own. The deceased was entitled to 40 per cent share and the other two partners 30 percent each. Clause.15 of deed of partnership provided that in the event of any change in the constitution of the firm of its dissolution, parties 2 and 3 who were working partners would be entitled only to the amounts standing to their respective credit in the books of the firm and they shall not be entitled to any share in the goodwill or trade-mark. 3. In making the original assessment to estate duty of the estate of Gulam Moideen under S.58(3) of the Estate Duty Act, the principal value of the estate was taken as Rs. 2,19,897/-. In determining this amount 40 per cent of the goodwill valued at Rs. 8,000/- was shown as the share of the goodwill to be taken for the purpose of assessment to estate duty. Subsequently there was an audit and the audit party pointed out that in view of Clause.15 of the partnership deed the entire goodwill of the business belonged to the deceased. Thereupon the Assistant Controller reopened the assessment under S.59 (b) of the Estate Duty Act. Subsequently there was an audit and the audit party pointed out that in view of Clause.15 of the partnership deed the entire goodwill of the business belonged to the deceased. Thereupon the Assistant Controller reopened the assessment under S.59 (b) of the Estate Duty Act. He directed the inclusion of the full value of the goodwill in the assets liable to estate duty. The value of the estate was determined as Rs. 2,40,997/-. 4. The Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, before whom an appeal was filed, did not accept the contentions of the appellant. It was also Contended before the Appellate Controller that in arriving at the super profits for the purpose of evaluating the goodwill, income-tax payable or paid should be excluded. This contention was not also accepted. The matter was taken to the Tribunal and the Tribunal found that the reopening had been made on the basis of the audit note which was proper and upheld the reopening. It is from these facts that the questions referred had arisen. 5. The main question that we are called upon to answer in this case concerns the reopening of the assessment on the basis of information furnished by the audit objection. If what was supplied by the audit party was merely information and the assessing authority treated it as such information and proceeded to assess, there wilt be no objection to such a course. If on the other hand if the audit party expressed a view on the materials and the assessing authority adopting that view decided to re-open the assessment, that may be objectionable. The assessing authority would then be not acting upon any information but upon the view expressed by the audit party. In other words, just as the assessing authority can obtain information from any source whatsoever such information can also be that supplied by the audit party. Such information does not preclude the assessing authority from forming an opinion of its own. If he receives any information, he has to form an opinion on such information whether reopening would be called for in the light of the information. That obligation arises even in respect of an audit objection. Such information does not preclude the assessing authority from forming an opinion of its own. If he receives any information, he has to form an opinion on such information whether reopening would be called for in the light of the information. That obligation arises even in respect of an audit objection. A clear instance where the assessing authority may not be competent to reopen on the basis of audit objection is where on materials available to him, the assessing authority after the consideration of such materials forms an opinion and merely because the audit party holds a different opinion and that opinion is communicated to the assessing authority, the assessing authority subsequently takes a different view. He would not then be acting upon any information. It would then be the reconsideration of the assessment order by reason of a different view on a matter already decided upon and that based on the opinion of the audit party. The decision in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi, 119 ITR. 996, was not available to the Tribunal when it decided the case and therefore there was no occasion for the Tribunal to consider the subject-matter of question No.1 in the light of the decision. We therefore think that in the circumstances of the case it calls for an answer by the Tribunal itself. 6. Questions Nos. 2 and 3 depend to a large extent upon question No.1 in the sense that if question No. 1, is answered against the revenue other questions would not call for answer. Independently questions Nos. 2 and 3 also require to be considered by the Tribunal itself, for reference has been made to Clause.15 of the agreement in the order but in effect Clause.14 in the Context of the plea also calls for consideration. Whether Clause.15 would be attracted to a circumstance such as that in this case also is a matter which the Tribunal has necessarily to consider. Hence we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to go into the matter afresh and dispose of the appeal in the light of what we have said. A Copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of this court shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.