Judgment :- N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. The only question that arises in the facts of the case is with regard to the reopening of the assessment under s. 16(1)(b) of the GT Act, 1958. The assessee is an individual. She made a gift of a godown by a gift deed dt. 12th April, 1973 in favour of her husband's brother's daughter. The assessee returned the value of the gifted property as on the date of the gift at Rs. 1, 60, 000. It is seen that the registration authorities functioning under the State of Tamil Nadu accepted the valuation of the gifted property at Rs. 1, 60, 000. The assessee also relied upon the valuation report regarding the property and she has, by a letter addressed to the GTO, pointed out the facts and left the GTO to value the property as he likes. The GTO, after applying his mind, accepted the valuation at Rs. 1, 60, 000 and completed the assessment on 6th March, 1975. 2. Some interesting development arose in the donee's assessment. The donee, on the basis of a valuation report, admitted the value of the gifted property at Rs. 2, 91, 000 as on June, 1976 in the wealth-tax assessment proceedings of the donee. In pursuance of the admission by the donee of the value of the property at Rs. 2, 91, 000, the wealth-tax assessment of the donee for the asst. yr. 1974-75 was reopened and the property was reassessed at the value of Rs. 2, 20, 000. The WTO by a letter, informed the valuation of the gifted property to the GTO and on the basis of the information received, the GTO issued a notice under s. 16(1)(b) of the GT Act to the assessee on 26th February, 1979 to show cause as to why the gift-tax assessment already made should not be reopened to reassess the value of the gifted property at Rs. 2, 20, 000. 3. The assessee objected to the reopening of the assessment and contended that the valuation of the property was determined by the GTO and the market value of the property as on the date of the gift was only the value that was declared by the assessee. The GTO, however, did not accept the objections raised by the assessee and made the reassessment taking the value of the gifted property at Rs. 2, 20, 000. 4. The GTO, however, did not accept the objections raised by the assessee and made the reassessment taking the value of the gifted property at Rs. 2, 20, 000. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the AAC against the order of reassessment made by the GTO. The AAC allowed the appeal on the ground that there was no case for reopening the assessment already made. 5. The Revenue carried the matter before the Tribunal and contended that the letter of the WTO would constitute as information for reopening the assessment under the GT Act. The assessee reiterated the objections made earlier. The Tribunal held that the GTO had fixed the value of the property after taking note of the valuation furnished by the assessee and on the acceptance of the value of the Registration Department and the assessee had disclosed all the facts before the GTO. The Tribunal held that it is not open to the GTO to reopen the assessment on the basis of the valuation given by the donee nearly after 3 years and the valuation of the donee cannot be treated as information for the purpose of reopening the assessment. The Tribunal, therefore, held that only on the basis of the change of opinion the GTO initiated the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal placed reliance on a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Tulsidas Kilachand vs. D. R. Chawla to come to the conclusion that the reopening of the assessment was not justified in law. 6. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law for our consideration : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the view of the AAC that the reopening of the Gift-tax assessment for the year 1974-75 under s. 16(1)(b) was invalid in law ?" 7. Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that it is not a case of change of opinion and the Tribunal overlooked the contention urged on behalf of the Department that the WTO having jurisdiction over the donee had forwarded a letter informing the GTO that the same property was valued at Rs. 2, 20, 000 for the same asst. yr. 1974-75 and, therefore, that letter would constitute information. 2, 20, 000 for the same asst. yr. 1974-75 and, therefore, that letter would constitute information. He strongly placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Virudhunagar Co-operative Milk Supply Society vs. CIT and submitted that the fact discovered during the assessment proceedings of the subsequent year would constitute 'information' within the meaning of s. 16(1)(b) of the GT Act and the reassessment proceedings based on such information is valid in law. He submitted that it is not as if on the basis of the valuation report, the assessment was reopened, but on the basis of the order passed by the WTO for the same assessment year, the assessment was reopened. He submitted that the decision of the Bombay High Court in Tulsidas Kilachand's case, cited supra, has no application as it was a case of reassessment on the basis of valuation report of a valuer. He further submitted that the decision of the Bombay High Court in Keki Hormusji Gharda vs. B. H. Raisinghani, WTO has distinguished the earlier decision in Tulsidas Kilachand's case, cited supra, and held that where the WTO has reopened the assessment not on the basis of any valuation report, but on the basis of the sale of the same property, that would constitute information for the purposes of reassessment. He also placed reliance on a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Avtar Singh Sandhu vs. WTO and submitted that the letter would constitute information as it came into the possession of the WTO subsequent to the completion of the original assessment and, therefore, submitted that the reassessment was valid in law. 8. Mr. Janakiraman, learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that it is a mere case of change of opinion and the donee's assessment made under the provisions of the WT Act cannot constitute information for the purpose of reopening the assessment made under the GT Act. His further submission was that in any event, the valuation date for the purpose of wealth-tax in the case of the donee for the asst. yr. His further submission was that in any event, the valuation date for the purpose of wealth-tax in the case of the donee for the asst. yr. 1974-75 would be 31st March, 1974 and the gift was made by the assessee on 12th April, 1973 and since there was a time gap of more than one year, in the absence of any other information that the value of the property as on 12th April, 1973 would be Rs. 2, 20, 000, the order of the assessment made under WT Act for the asst. yr. 1974-75 would not constitute information. He placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT and a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Allahabad Bank vs. CIT and submitted that the reassessment was made only on the basis of change of opinion and therefore, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the reassessment was not valid in law. 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties. We have set out the facts in detail and we are of the view that the Tribunal has proceeded on a wrong basis that the GTO had reopened the assessment on the basis of the valuation report furnished by the donee in the month of June, 1976. We have seen that the basis for the reopening of the assessment under s. 16(1)(b) of the GT Act by the GTO was the letter of the WTO furnishing information to the GTO that the property gifted to the donee was assessed for a sum of Rs. 2, 20, 000 in the hands of the donee for the same assessment year viz., 1974-75. The information given to the GTO by the WTO was with reference to the same property and for the same assessment year. But, no doubt, it is true that there is a time gap of nearly one year from the date of gift and the relevant valuation date for the assessment of the donee under WT Act for the asst. yr. 1974-75 and the WTO made the assessment and determined the value of the same property gifted at Rs. But, no doubt, it is true that there is a time gap of nearly one year from the date of gift and the relevant valuation date for the assessment of the donee under WT Act for the asst. yr. 1974-75 and the WTO made the assessment and determined the value of the same property gifted at Rs. 2, 20, 000 after applying his mind to the determination of the fair market value of the property and the order passed by the said officer was passed by virtue of the provisions of the Act and it is a statutory order. We are of the view that the valuation report submitted by a valuer, be it by a Department Valuer or by an independent valuer, cannot be equated to the order of the WTO. The WTO made the assessment on the basis of the valuation report and after considering the evidence on record and therefore, as he has applied his mind to the materials on record including the valuation report, the order passed by him has certain legal consequences. It is easy to visualise a case where a valuation report was submitted before the Court of law for determination of the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, as the valuation report would constitute only a material piece of evidence. However, after considering the valuation report, if the Court determined the value of the property and even if the same value as furnished in the valuation report was adopted by the Court, the order of the Court has higher status and is a reliable piece of evidence in determining the market value of the property acquired. Applying the same analogy, the order of the WTO determining the value of the property should be placed in an elevated status than that of the report of the valuer. Therefore, the information furnished by the WTO to the GTO would certainly constitute information for the purpose of reopening the assessment. 10. The next question that arises is whether, because of the gap between the date of the gift and the valuation date, the order of the WTO can be regarded as information for the purpose of s. 16(1)(b) of the GT Act. The Supreme Court in the case of Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT (supra) held that the information must be an instruction or knowledge concerning facts or particulars. The Supreme Court in the case of Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT (supra) held that the information must be an instruction or knowledge concerning facts or particulars. The letter of the WTO informing the fact about the value of the property relates to a factual position or factual information or factual particulars regarding the value of the property. The next test that is laid down by the Supreme Court in the said case is whether the information furnished by its inherent nature would show concrete existence of the fact and it must influence in the determination of the issue by the mere circumstance of its relevance, and requires no further authority to make it significant. We are of the view, the second test adumbrated by the apex Court is satisfied as the information by its inherent nature has shown concrete existence of a fact on the valuation of the property at a particular figure and that information must has influenced the mind of the GTO as to the determination of the market value of the property on the date of the gift. Therefore, we are of the view that the second test adumbrated by the apex Court is satisfied, in the instant case. The third test that is laid down by the Supreme Court is whether its quintessential value lies in its definitive vitality. We are of the view, that the third test is also satisfied. The information furnished as such has made it significant to the GTO that there was undervaluation in the assessment of the property gifted and thus, the information regarding the market value of the property has a definitive vitality. Therefore, we are of the view, all the tests laid down by the Supreme Court regarding 'information' are fully satisfied in this case and the letter of the WTO would constitute information for the purpose of reopening of the assessment. 11. The contention of Mr. Janakiraman, learned counsel for the assessee, is that there was no live link or nexus between the material before the AO and the belief of the officer to form an opinion regarding undervaluation of the property as there is a yawning gap of nearly one year between the date of gift and the valuation date. 11. The contention of Mr. Janakiraman, learned counsel for the assessee, is that there was no live link or nexus between the material before the AO and the belief of the officer to form an opinion regarding undervaluation of the property as there is a yawning gap of nearly one year between the date of gift and the valuation date. Though there is a time gap of nearly one year, we are of the view that the same property gifted was valued for the same assessment year in the hands of the donee and the assessee has not established before the authorities that there was alteration in the property gifted or there was a sudden spurt in the market value of the property. The GTO on receipt of the letter from the WTO has come to a prima facie conclusion that there was an undervaluation of the property gifted and the letter would constitute material for the formation of the belief by the GTO that there was an undervaluation. Therefore, in our view, there is a nexus between the formation of the belief by the GTO that there was an undervaluation and the materials which came into the possession of the GTO subsequent to the completion of the assessment. Since there is a link between the material and the formation of the opinion, we are of the view that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das would support the case of the Revenue instead of the assessee. The contention of Mr. Janakiraman, learned counsel for the assessee is that since there is a wide gap of one year, the letter cannot be regarded as information. However, we are of the view that for the purpose of reopening the assessment, the letter would constitute information; however, it is still open to the assessee to establish in the reassessment proceedings, on merits, the fair market value of the property as on the date of the gift was only Rs. 1, 60, 000. Hence, it is not possible to test the validity of the reassessment proceedings on the score of what would be the value of the property that may be ultimately determined in the final assessment. We are of the view, the materials which are sufficient to reopen the assessment may not be adequate to make an assessment on the merits of the case. We are of the view, the materials which are sufficient to reopen the assessment may not be adequate to make an assessment on the merits of the case. But, we are concerned only with the jurisdiction of the GTO to reopen the assessment. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Janakiraman, learned counsel for the assessee, that there is no link or nexus between the formation of opinion by the GTO that there was an undervaluation and the materials on record. 12. Now let us consider the various decisions relied upon by the respective parties. Mr. Janakiraman, learned counsel was pleased to rely upon a decision of the Bombay High Court in Tulsidas Kilachand vs. D. R. Chawla (supra) where the assessment was reopened on the basis of the valuation report prepared by an executive engineer of the Department on the ground that the properties were not properly valued by the assessee therein. In that situation, the Bombay High Court held that the fact that two valuers had given two conflicting reports about the true value of the property was not sufficient to enable the WTO to reopen the assessment under s. 17(1) of the WT Act. The said decision of the Bombay High Court has no application to the facts of the case. Here, it is not a case of reopening of assessment on the basis of a valuation report furnished by the valuer, but the assessment was reopened on the basis of an order of the WTO and therefore, the decision of the Bombay High Court has no application to the facts of the case. Further, the abovesaid decision of the Bombay High Court was distinguished in Keki Hormusji Gharda vs. B. H. Raisinghani, WTO (supra). The later decision of the Bombay High Court relates to the reopening of the assessment and the assessment was reopened on the basis of the assessee's own valuation report and the assessee's own sale transactions by which the property was sold in the next year at more than four times of the value that was determined in the earlier assessment years and the Bombay High Court in that factual situation held that the notice issued by the WTO under s. 17 of the WT Act was valid. Applying the same principle laid down by the Bombay High Court, it could not be postulated, without any evidence pointing to the contrary, that there was a sudden jump in the value of the property in the same assessment year from Rs. 1, 60, 000 to Rs. 2, 20, 000, when the same property was valued under WT Act in the hands of the donee. The order of the WTO, in our view, would constitute information for the purpose of reopening the assessment. Therefore, we are of the view that the notice issued by the GTO under s. 16(1)(b) of the GT Act is valid. 13. The decision of the Delhi High Court in Avtar Singh Sandhu vs. WTO (supra) is nearer to the facts of the case. In that case, the assessee had filed the returns for the asst. yrs. 1968-69 to 1974-75 showing the value of a house property at Rs. 1, 25, 000 and on the basis of the returns submitted by the assessee, the WTO completed the assessment in April, 1975. The assessee applied for tax clearance certificate under the relevant provisions of the IT Act with a view to get clearance for the sale of the property and in that application he mentioned that he had agreed to sell the property at Rs. 27, 65, 825 and on the basis of the information furnished by the assessee in the application for tax clearance certificate, the ITO reopened the assessment under both the cls. (a) and (b) of s. 17(1) of the WT Act. The Delhi High Court upheld the contention of the assessee in so far as the validity of the reassessment under cl. (a) of s. 17(1) of the WT Act for the asst. yrs. 1968-69 to 1970-71. The Delhi High Court, however, held that the officer had jurisdiction to issue notice for the asst. yr. 1971-72 to 1974-75 as the agreement would constitute information coming into the possession of the WTO and on the basis of the said agreement, the WTO could reopen the assessment under cl. (b) of s. 17(1) of the WT Act. It is relevant to notice that information regarding value of the property came into possession in the year 1975. But, that information was held by the Delhi High Court to be valid for the purpose of reopening the assessment for the years 1971-72 to 1974-75. (b) of s. 17(1) of the WT Act. It is relevant to notice that information regarding value of the property came into possession in the year 1975. But, that information was held by the Delhi High Court to be valid for the purpose of reopening the assessment for the years 1971-72 to 1974-75. Applying the same principle to the facts of the case, we are of the view that though the assessment was made on the donee for the same assessment year at higher rate, that would constitute information for the purpose of reopening the assessment under the GT Act for the same assessment year. The information regarding the market value of the property was with reference to the same property for the same assessment year and in our opinion, that piece of evidence would constitute information for the purpose of reopening the assessment under s. 16(1)(b) of the GT Act. 14. In Virudhunagar Co-op. Milk Supply Society vs. CIT (supra), this Court held that a subsequent assessment proceeding or a fact discovered from the subsequent assessment proceedings would constitute 'information' within the meaning of s. 147(b) of the IT Act. Applying the same principle to the facts of the case, the subsequent information regarding the assessment of the donee would constitute information for the purpose of s. 16(1)(b) of the GT Act as well and therefore, we are of the view that the GTO has acted properly is invoking the provisions of s. 16(1)(b) of the GT Act. 15. In ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (supra) the Supreme Court held that for reopening of an assessment, the reasons for the formation of belief must have a rational connection or relevant bearing on the formation of the belief and there must be direct nexus or live link between the materials received by the ITO and the formation of his belief that there had been escapement of income of the assessee from the assessment. Applying the test laid down by the Supreme Court, we feel that the material which came into possession of the WTO cannot be regarded as vague or indefinite or remote. It cannot also be regarded as far-fetched which cannot lead the officer for the formation of the belief that there was an escapement of gift. Applying the test laid down by the Supreme Court, we feel that the material which came into possession of the WTO cannot be regarded as vague or indefinite or remote. It cannot also be regarded as far-fetched which cannot lead the officer for the formation of the belief that there was an escapement of gift. Though there is time gap of one year between the date of gift and the valuation date, it cannot be regarded as so distant in the point of time which would not lead the GTO to form a reasonable belief that there was an escapement of gift in the assessment proceedings. Viewed the matter from any angle, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the GTO has no information to reopen the assessment. 16. The next decision that was relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee is the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT (supra). The Supreme Court therein held that the opinion of the audit party on a point of law cannot be regarded as information we are of the view, in the instant case, the WTO has not interpreted the provisions of the law, but, on the other hand, he merely brought to the notice of the GTO the value of the same property assessed at higher rate in the hands of the donee for the same assessment year and the information furnished by the WTO, in our opinion is an information on a question of fact and not on a question of law. We have already held that the tests propounded by the Supreme Court are fully satisfied in the case before this Court. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court in Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society's case, cited supra, is not of much help to the assessee.17. The decision of the Calcutta High Court in Allahabad Bank vs. CIT (supra) holding that mere change of opinion would not amount to information has no application to the facts of the case as it cannot be said that the present case is a case of mere change of opinion on the part of the GTO, as there was an information from the WTO and that was material and was not available at the time of completion of original assessment. Therefore, the conditions precedent for reopening the assessment under s. 16(1)(b) of the GT Act are fully satisfied on the facts of the case. Therefore, the view of the Tribunal that the reopening of the assessment was invalid in law is not sustainable in law. On a study of various case laws cited on behalf of the Revenue as well as the assessee, we are of the view that the GTO had information to reopen the assessment under s. 16(1)(b) of the GT Act and the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the reopening of the assessment was invalid in law. Accordingly, we answer the question of law referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Since we have held that Tribunal was not justified in holding that the reopening of the assessment was invalid in law, the result is that the Tribunal is directed to go into the question on merits of the case.