Agricultural income test and reassessment validity turn on substance, not labels, where commercial plantation receipts were taxed as business income.

Reassessment under section 147 was upheld because it rested on subsequently discovered factual material showing incorrect particulars about agricultural activity, so it was not a mere change of opinion. Receipts from the teak plantation arrangement were treated as business income because the assessee was not carrying on its own agricultural operations; the land was made available for a commercial scheme and the actual plantation and maintenance were done by a sister concern. The ruling reiterates that agricultural income requires a direct nexus with agricultural operations or land used for agriculture, and the true character of the receipt depends on the substance of the arrangement. The assessee's challenges failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment under section 147 was valid despite the alleged non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) within time. (ii) Whether the receipts from the teak plantation arrangement constituted agricultural income or business income.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment under section 147 was valid despite the alleged non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) within time.

Analysis: The reassessment was sustained on the basis of factual material later unearthed by the Assessing Officer showing that the assessee had furnished incorrect particulars about agricultural activity. The reopening was held not to be a mere change of opinion, but one founded on subsequently discovered information and corrected factual findings.

Conclusion: The reassessment was valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the receipts from the teak plantation arrangement constituted agricultural income or business income.

Analysis: The receipts were not found to arise from the assessee's own agricultural operations. The land was placed at the disposal of the scheme operator, and the actual plantation and maintenance work was carried out by a sister concern. The real source of the receipts was the permission granted to use the land for a specific commercial scheme, so the income lacked the direct nexus with agriculture required by section 2(1A).

Conclusion: The receipts were business income and not agricultural income.

Final Conclusion: The questions of law were answered against the assessee, and the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Income qualifies as agricultural income only when it is directly derived from agricultural operations or from land used for agricultural purposes, and the true character of the receipt must be determined from the real substance of the arrangement rather than its label.

---