NARAYAN DUTT,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD- 3, PANIPAT

ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 01.11.2018 of Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Karnal pertaining to assessment year 2010-11.

2. The dispute in the present appeal is in relation to an addition of Rs.13,00,500 made by the assessing officer and sustained by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).

Accordingly, he reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. In response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, assessee filed his return of income declaring income from other sources at Rs.19,646. Additionally, he also declared agricultural income at Rs,16,50,500. While, completing the assessment, the assessing officer held that the quantum of agricultural income offered by assessee is not believable as assessee cannot be expected to have earned that amount from agricultural land holding of 3.5 acre. Thus, he estimated the agricultural income earned by assessee at Rs.3,50,000. The balance amount of Rs.13,00,500 out of agricultural income offered by the assessee was treated as income from other sources. The aforesaid decision of the assessing officer was also upheld by learned Commissioner (Appeals).

However, on a reading of the assessment order, it is very much clear that after considering the explanation/submission of the assessee, he has accepted the source of deposits made in the bank account. The only tinkering made by him is in respect of the agricultural income offered by assessee himself. Therefore, it is a foregone fact that the assessing officer without making any addition of the item of income, for which the assessment was reopened under Section 147 of the Act, has made addition of a different item of income. In fact, the assessing officer has merely changed the nature and head income from agricultural income to income from other sources. Thus, in my view, it is against the settled principles of law. In this context, reliance can be placed on the following decisions: