Sh. Abhay Singh Chautala, Chandigarh V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 522/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8275 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTALDR
• Keywords: Business income; Search and seizure; Salary income; Source of fund; Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148; 263; 139; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 522/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 SHRI ABHAY SINGH CHAUTALA, VS THE ACIT, HOUSE NO. 80,SECTOR 9, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: ANQPS6334J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI T.N.SINGLA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL,DR DATE OF HEARING : 23.02.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.03.2017 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF PR. CIT (GURGAON) WITH CHARGE OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-3 GURGAON DATED 25.03.2015 FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. I HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDE R APPEAL I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON 31.10.2004 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 8,41,050/- AND AGRICULTU RE INCOME OF RS. 42 LACS. ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS 2 COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT VI DE ORDER DATED 27.12.2006 AT THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS . 8,41,050/- AND AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 42 LACS ( COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS FILED AT PAGE 4 OF PAPER BOOK). ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE INCO ME TAX DEPARTMENT, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED IN THIS CASE ON 23.03.2011 AFTER RECORDING T HE REASONS AND OBTAINING THE APPROVAL. THE ASSESSEE S TATED THAT RETURN ALREADY FILED MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CALLING EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF AGRICULTURE INCOME DECLARED IN A SUM OF RS. 42 LACS AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 14,97,774/- ON ACCOUNT OF 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S' AS AGAINST TOTAL CLAIM OF AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 42 LACS. 4. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS ADDITION ON MERIT BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS). HOWEVER, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED. 5. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS CHALLENGE D UPHOLDING OF THE RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC TION 147/148 OF THE ACT AS WELL AS ADDITION ON MERITS. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW. PB-15 I S COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BY RE FERRING 3 TO THE SAME, SUBMITTED THAT RE-OPENING WAS MADE MAI NLY ON THE REASONS OF EXCESS DEPOSIT OF RS. 8,50,594/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH WAS CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. PB-4 IS ORIGI NAL ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 27.12.2 006 IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CALLING EXPLAN ATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND PROOF OF LAND HOLDING AND PROOF OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE AND SALE THEREOF, ACCEPTED THE AGRICULTURE INCOME AT RS. 42 LACS. PB-6 IS NOTICE DATED 08.09.2006 IN WHICH ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED FOR THE DETAILS OF ALL THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND DETAILS OF ALL DEBIT AND CREDIT ENTRIES THEREON. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO CALLED FOR THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 42 LACS SUPPORTED BY PROOF OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY ASSESSEE, DETAILS OF AGRICULTURE CROPS CULTIVATED, NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM AGRICULTURE PROD UCE WERE SOLD AND COPY OF FORM NO.J. PB-8 IS REPLY O F THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 02.12.2006 FURNISHING THE REQUIRED DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNT AND BANK DEPOSITS. PB-10 IS ANOTHER REPLY DATED 11.12.2006 BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER IN WHICH ALL THE DETAILS AND EVID ENCES OF HOLDING OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, KHASRA GIRDAWARI ALONGWITH LEASE PAPERS, DETAILS OF CROPS CULTIVATED AND SOLD TO OTHERS, FORM-J BILLS AND ACCOUNTS AND DETAI LS OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE SOLD WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSES SING OFFICER. PB-12 IS ORDER-SHEET OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ACCEPTING OF INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO HIM AT THE ORI GINAL ASSESSMENT STAGE ALONGWITH PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE 4 AGRICULTURAL LAND AND NECESSARY PLANTS. THE ASSESS EE, THEREFORE, PRODUCED ALL THE DETAILS OF BANK DEPOSIT S AND AGRICULTURE INCOME EARNED AT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMEN T STAGE WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER DETAILED INVESTIGATION. PB-105 IS COPY OF TH E BANK ACCOUNT TO SHOW DEPOSITS OF RS. 4 LACS AND RS. 6 LA CS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON TRANSFER SUPPOR TED BY PB-102 WHICH IS CERTIFICATE OF PAYING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 4 LACS AND RS. 6 LACS TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED RS. 10 LACS IN THE REASO NS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE REAS ONS AS TO WHICH DETAILS WERE NOT FILED BY ASSESSEE AT O RIGINAL ASSESSMENT STAGE. THE ASSESSEE HAS MORE GROSS RECE IPTS FROM AGRICULTURE INCOME BECAUSE NET AGRICULTURE INC OME IS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION OF DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY CONSIDERED ISSUE OF AGRICULTURE INCOME AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO REASONS HAVE BEEN RECORDED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT FOR RE-OPENIN G OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPL Y HIS MIND TO THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS A CASE OF ME RE CHANGE OF OPINION AND RELIED UPON DECISION OF THE H ON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS KELVINATOR OF I NDIA 320 ITR 561. 5 6(I) THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTE D THAT THERE IS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT AT ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT STAGE. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE S OME MISTAKE IN ASSESSING THE INCOME, A RECOURSE TO SECT ION 147 IS NOT AVAILABLE AND THE APPROPRIATE COURSE WOU LD BE FOR THE CIT TO PASS AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF T HE ACT. IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSITION, HE HAS RELIED UPON DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF B.B.C. WORLDWIDE LTD. VS ADIT 135 DTR 86 IN WHICH IT WAS A LSO HELD AS UNDER : CONCLUSION : AO HAD CONDUCTED A DETAILED EXAMINATI ON AND THEREAFTER, ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE; FU RTHER FACT THAT ANOTHER AO HAD ADOPTED A DIFFERENT METHOD OF ESTIMATING THE INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO INDIAN ACTIVITIES CAN HARDLY BE A REASON TO REOP EN THE ASSESSMENT OR TO ALLEGE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO TRULY AND FU LLY DISCLOSE MATERIAL FACTS FOR THE PURPOSES OF ITS ASSESSMENT; REOPENING WAS N OT THEREFORE SUSTAINABLE. 6(II) PB-17 IS NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT DATED 23.03.2010. WHEN THIS NOTICE WAS PENDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTI ON 148 OF THE ACT DATED 23.03.2011 (PB-18). PB-14 IS THE ORDER- SHEET. NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT H AVE BEEN ISSUED AFTER ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON 23.03.2010. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THER EFORE, SUBMITTED THAT DURING PENDENCY OF EARLIER NOTICE UN DER 6 SECTION 148, NO FRESH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 CAN BE ISSUED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WITHOUT APPLYING HI S MIND HAS MADE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS CLEARLY BAD I N LAW. HE HAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT RE-ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS MAY BE QUASHED. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUB MITTED THAT SINCE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT, AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE CORRECTLY INITIATED THE RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT . 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. FIRST PROV ISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT PROVIDES AS UNDER : PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB-SECTIO N (3) OF SECTION 143 OR THIS SECTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR TH E RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN UNDER THIS SECTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM TH E END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY REASON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PAR T OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) O F SECTION 142 OR SECTION 148 OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT, FO R THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 8. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT ON MERE CHANGE OF OP INION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR RE - ASSESSMENT AND THAT THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 147 W. E.F. 01.04.1989 HAS NOT ALTERED THE POSITION. I RELY UP ON DECISION OF THE FULL BENCH OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. 256 ITR 1. THIS VIEW HA VE BEEN CONFIRMED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT 7 VS KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. 320 ITR 561. I ALSO RE LY UPON DECISION OF HON'BLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F GARDEN SILK MILLS P.LTD. 237 ITR 668, HON'BLE CALCU TTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BERGER PAINTS (INDIA) P. LTD. 245 ITR 648 AND HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F FORAMER FRANCE 264 ITR 566. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIAN OIL CORPORATION 159 ITR 956 HELD THAT, NO CASE UNDER SECTION 148 IS MADE OUT WHEN THE FAC TS WERE KNOWN ALL ALONG WITH TO THE REVENUE WHILE MAKI NG THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ASSOCIATED STONE INDUSTRY LTD. 224 ITR 560 HELD THAT, ASSESSEE SHALL HAVE TO DISCLOSE ONLY PRIMARY FACT S. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED SUFFICIEN T MATERIAL ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT ASSESSEE HAS DISCL OSED ALL THE INCOME INCLUDING AGRICULTURE INCOME IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AND STATEMENT OF ASSESSAB LE INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SPECIFIC SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AT ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT STAGE ASKING THE DETAILS OF ALL BANK ACCOUNTS AND ENTRIES THEREIN AND DETAILS OF AGRICULTURE INCOME WITH PROO F. AS NOTED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED REPLIES BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER DISCLOSING COMPLETE DETAILS OF BA NK DEPOSITS AND EARNING OF AGRICULTURE INCOME WITH PRO OF OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED/CULTIVATED AND OBTAINED ON LEASE. ALL DETAILS OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE SOLD WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCES WERE FURNISHED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THESE FACTS IN THE ORDER-SHEET AS WEL L. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINING THE DETAILS OF IN COME 8 OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TAXATION AND AGRICULTUR E INCOME NOTED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 27.12.2006 THAT ASSESSEE FILED THE PROOF OF LAND HOLDING AND PROOF OF AGRICULTURE PROD UCE AND SALE THEREOF. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED THE COPI ES OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS WHICH HAVE BEEN EXAMINED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE RETURNED INCOME AND AGRICULTURE INCOME DECLARED AT RS. 42 LACS. HOWEVE R, ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REASONS FOR RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT NOTED EXCESS DEPOSIT OF RS. 8,50,594/- I N THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, COPY OF WHICH IS FILE D AT PAGE 15-16 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND REPRODUCED AS UNDE R : ANNEXURE-A NAME OF THE ASSESSEE SH. ABBEY SINGH CHAUTALA H.NO- 80, SECTOR 9, CHANDIGARH. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 PAN ANQPS6334J REASONS FOR RE-OPENING THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DELHI, CONDUCT ED RAIDS AT SEVERAL PREMISES OF SH. OM PRAKASH CHAUTALA AND SHRI AJAY S INGH CHAUTALA ON 7 TH APRIL,2006. SUBSEQUENT TO THE RAID OPERATION, THE C HAUTALA GROUP OF CASES HAS BEEN CENTRALIZED WITH THIS OFFICE. THE CASE OF SH. ABHAY SINGH CHAUTALA IS ONE OF THEM. THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM ACIT, CIRCLE-I, CHANDIGARH. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10,2004 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 8,41,050/- A LONG WITH AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.42,00,000/-. THE ASSESSME NT WAS COMPLETED AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.8,41,050/- U/S 143(3) VIDE AN ORDER DATED 27.12.2006. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED INCOME FROM SALARY AT RS. 3,17,200/-, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS. 1,71,784/-, INCOME FROM BUSINESS AT RS. 1,22,180/- AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AT RS. 2,44,885/-. 9 ON PERUSAL OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DDIT (I NV)-I, FARIDABAD AND COMPARING THE SAME WITH THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE F ROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORD, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEP OSITED EXCESS OF RS, 60,66,427 52,15,833/- I.E. RS.8,50,594/-.THE DETAILED BREA KUP OF THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW : THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSED ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR THEREFO RE, THE EXCESS DEPOSIT OF RS.8, 50,594/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS HIS UNDISCLO SED INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. I HAVE THEREFORE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF RS.8, 50,594/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S 148 NEEDS TO BE ISSUED TO ASSESS-OR REASSESS SUCH INCOME AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHAR GEABLE TO TAX WHICH COMES TO NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. SD/- ( MANOJ KUMAR SINGH) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II , CHANDIGARH . 9. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THESE REASONS FOR RE- OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT NOTED THE DETAILS OF SOUR CE OF INCOME AND DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT WHICH WERE OBTAI NED FROM THE RETURNED INCOME AND STATEMENT OF ASSESSABL E INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE MADE SL. NO. SOURCES OF INCOME DEPOSITS IN BANKS 1 RENT RECEIVED ( EXCLUDING HOUSE TAX OF RS.2,09,508/- AND INTEREST OF RS.35,846/- PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ) 2,60,768 OBC, SIFSA 10,16,203 2 SALARY RECEIVED 3,18,000 OBC, SIRSA 10 ,732 3 BUSINESS INCOME 1,92,180 SBI, DABWALI 2,13,275 4 INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES 2,44,885 SBI, ABOHAR 71,580 5 AGRICULTURAL INCOME 42,00,000 SBI, CHAUTALA 47,53,805 6 SBI, CHAUTALA (MINOR'S- ACCOUNT) 832 TOTAL 52,15,833 TOTAL 60,66,427 10 EXCESS DEPOSIT OF RS. 8,50,594/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUN T WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE H AS NOT FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSED ALL MATERIAL FACTS NE CESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITI ON OF EXCESS CASH DEPOSIT IN THE IMPUGNED RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODU CED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE LESSER BANK DEPOSIT BECAUSE RS. 10 LACS DEPOSIT HAV E NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. ULTIMATELY, ASSESSING OFF ICER WAS SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE OF BANK DEPOSITS, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS MADE. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE, THEREFORE, WHOLLY INCORRECT AND DID NOT LEAD TO ANY WHERE IF THERE IS ANY ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT RECORDED ANY FACT IN THE REASO NS IF AGRICULTURE INCOME ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER CALLED FOR THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURE INCOM E AT ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT STAGE AND ASKED FOR ALL THE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF DECLARATION OF AGRICULTURE INCOME IN A SUM OF RS . 42 LACS. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND MATER IAL BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AT ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT STA GE IN SUPPORT OF EARNING OF AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 42 LACS. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE A SSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECE SSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT WITH REGARD TO COMPUTATION OF AGRICU LTURE INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REASONS FOR R E- 11 OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT HAS NOWHERE RECORDED IF A SSESSEE HAS NOT FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSED ALL MATERIAL FACT S FOR DECLARING AGRICULTURE INCOME. THE RECORD, ON THE O THER HAND, WOULD REVEAL THAT ASSESSEE DISCLOSED FULLY AND TRUL Y ALL MATERIAL FACTS OF EARNING OF AGRICULTURE INCOME AT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT STAGE. THEREFORE, ALL THE FACTS OF EARNI NG OF AGRICULTURE INCOME SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCES WERE WITH IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF REVENUE DEPARTMENT/ASSESSING OFFICER A T THE TIME OF MAKING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESS EE HAS, THUS, DISCLOSED ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS OF EARN ING OF AGRICULTURE INCOME AT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT STAGE . NO FURTHER MATERIAL IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EARNING OF AGRICULTURE INCOME. TH EREFORE, ON MERE CHANGE OF OPINION, SUBSEQUENT ASSESSING OFF ICER IS NOT COMPETENT TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS THUS, BAD IN LAW IN THIS CASE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF B.B. C. WORLDWIDE LTD. VS ADIT (SUPRA). RE-OPENING OF ASSES SMENT AFTER 4 YEAR IN FACTS OF CASE IS ALSO BAD IN LAW. 10. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IN THE LIGHT O F THE LEGAL PROPOSITION DECIDED IN ABOVE CASES, IT IS CLE AR THAT ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RE-OPENING ASSESSMENT AFTER EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS FROM END OF ASSESSMENT YEAR AND ON MERE CHANGE OF OPINION. THEREFORE, RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS LIABLE T O BE SET ASIDE AND QUASHED. 12 11. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RAISED AN OTHER POINT OF ISSUING SECOND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AND NON ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT ON ISSUING FIRST NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF TH E ACT. HOWEVER, WHEN I HAVE HELD THAT RE-OPENING OF ASSESS MENT IS BAD IN LAW ON MERE CHANGE OF OPINION, THERE IS N O NEED TO DECIDE THESE POINTS FURTHER. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I SET ASIDE AN D QUASH THE RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 14 8 OF THE ACT. RESULTANTLY, ALL ADDITIONS MADE IN THE RE - ASSESSMENT ORDER STAND DELETED. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 6 TH, MARCH,2017. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH