C.S.P. Singh, J.
1. The petitioner is the accountable person for the estate of late Sri P. K. Banerji. Estate of the value of Rs. 1,16,166 was disclosed by the accountable person, but assessment was made at a value of Rs. 11,27,261. The value was enhanced mainly on account of the addition of the value of the trust property to the extent of Rs. 10,08,200. Subsequent to the finalisation of the assessment, a notice under Section 60(2) was sent to the accountable person as to why action against him should not be taken under Section 60(1 )(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of the estate of the deceased. The petitioner filed reply to the notice but the Assistant Controller by his order imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000.
2. We have gone through the order of the Assistant Controller. The Assistant Controller found that there had been a non-disclosure of the full particulars of the estate of the deceased, and from that he inferred that the accountable person had concealed the particulars and deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. There appears to be a patent flaw in the reasoning of the Assistant Controller. Mere non-disclosure of the property of a deceased person would not in all cases amount to concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had not disclosed the value of the trust property, as she was advised that the trust property did not pass on the death of the beneficiary, and, further, that much before the assessment had been finalised a letter had been sent to the Member, Central Board of Revenue, bringing this to his notice, and soliciting his decision on thequestion as to whether trust property passes on the death of a beneficiary. The Assistant Controller does not appear to have taken these facts into account while passing the impugned orders. In an inquiry whether there has been concealment of particulars or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars an enquiry into the facts to which our attention has been drawn were relevant. The decision having been entered into without a consideration of these relevant facts cannot be sustained.
3. The petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated August 6, 1975, is quashed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.