P. KRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following question of law under Section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for opinion to this Court: "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee could change the status of residence as shown in the original return to "non-resident" shown in the return filed in pursuance of the notice issued under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to income neither declared nor assessed in the original assessment?" ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case giving rise to the present reference are as follows:-The assessee respondent filed his return for the assessment year 1980-81. In the return the status of residence of the assessee was disclosed as of a "resident". The assessment order under Section 143 (1) of the Act was made on 5th of July 1982. During the assessment proceedings for the next assessment year namely 1981-82, the Income Tax Officer found that the assessee had earned income which in terms of Indian currency amounted to Rs. 93,663/- as salary from M/s. J. H. Lloyd Davies. Inc. The assessing Officer was of the view that the aforesaid income has escaped assessment even though it was earned in U. S. A. Proceedings under Section 147 (a) of the Act were initiated. In response to the reassessment notice, the assessee respondent claimed exemption from tax on the aforesaid income on the ground that his residence is of "non-resident". The Income Tax Officer was of the view that the assessee had been in India for 372 days in 4 preceding assessment years and was in India for 62 days in the relevant assessment year, therefore, the assessee was a resident in terms of Section 6 (1) (c) of the Act. He, therefore, levied income tax on the amount of Rs. 93,336/- as tax in the assessment year in the status of a resident. ( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved the assessee respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals ). He, therefore, levied income tax on the amount of Rs. 93,336/- as tax in the assessment year in the status of a resident. ( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved the assessee respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals ). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee respondent who originally disclosed his status as "resident" could not be allowed to change his residence status to a "non-resident" in reassessment proceedings. However, on further appeal to the Tribunal, the reassessment order was set aside. Before the tribunal by way of preliminary objection an argument was raised by the Department that the matter already concluded by the original assessment cannot be reopened in the reassessment proceedings. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal was of the view that the assessee does not want any exemption with regard to his already declared or assessed income and his defence is that since he was a "non-resident" during the year under appeal, the assessee is entitled to take a plea of nontaxability of the income as being his status as that of a "non-resident". On merits, the Tribunal on the basis of two certificates dated 1st of July 1979 and 5th of January 1981 has come to the conclusion that he was appointed on Ist of July 1971 and he proceeded on leave immediately thereafter and resumed his service only on 10th of September 1977. The assessee was entitled to all the privileges as relationship of master and servant is established and the certificate clearly slates that he was allowed leave, though he resumed the duties on 10. 9. 1979 but was appointed on 1,7. 1979. It was of the opinion that the expression " rendering service" would mean either actually rendering service or had the capacity to render the service", Therefore, the salary earned by the assessee respondent is not taxable in his hand. In India. ( 5 ) HEARD Shri Shambhu Chopra, the learned standing counsel for the department. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. ( 6 ) THE assessee in the original return of the income for the assessment year in question claimed his residence status as of a "resident". The original assessment order under Section 143 (1) of the act treating the assessee as "resident" was passed on 5th of July 1982. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. ( 6 ) THE assessee in the original return of the income for the assessment year in question claimed his residence status as of a "resident". The original assessment order under Section 143 (1) of the act treating the assessee as "resident" was passed on 5th of July 1982. It was during the assessment proceedings for the subsequent assessment year namely 1981-82, the Income Tax officer found that the assessee had earned a sum of Rs. 93,336/- as salary from M/s. J. H. L. Lloyd Davies. Inc earned at U. S. A. and was not disclosed as income by the assessee. Consequently, the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were initialed. ( 7 ) THE assessee in response to the reassessment notice changed his status as that of " non-resident". Use question which falls for consideration is whether an assessee can change his residence status in the reassessment proceedings when it is not disputed by him in the original return. ( 8 ) RELIANCE was placed by the department in support of its case on a judgment of the Kerala High court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. V. C. Ravindra and Ors. [1977 ]107 ITR547 (Ker ). It was held that an assessee could not, during the reassessment proceedings be allowed to seek recomputation of the net wealth and redoing of the assessment and set up a claim which the assessee had failed to make at a time of the regular assessment, specially when that assessment had become final. This was a case under the Wealth tax Act and the Court was of On: opinion that there is no material difference in this respect between the provisions of Income Tax Act 1961 and Wealth Tax Act 1957. ( 9 ) IT appears that there was divergent views on the issue about the scope of power and jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer under Section 147 of the Act and the rights of an assessee in those proceedings. The Supreme Court has noticed the divergent views of the High Courts and resolved the controversy in the ease of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sun Engineering works Pvt. Ltd. AIR1993 SC 43 , [1992 ]198 ITR297 (SC ), JT1992 (5)SC 543 , 1992 (2 )SCALE591 , (1992 )4 SCC363 , [1992 ]supp1 SCR732. The Supreme Court has noticed the divergent views of the High Courts and resolved the controversy in the ease of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sun Engineering works Pvt. Ltd. AIR1993 SC 43 , [1992 ]198 ITR297 (SC ), JT1992 (5)SC 543 , 1992 (2 )SCALE591 , (1992 )4 SCC363 , [1992 ]supp1 SCR732. It has impliedly approved the aforesaid view of the Kerala High Court. The Supreme Court has come to the conclusion that in the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, the Income fax Officer may bring to charge all items of income which had escaped the assessment other than or in addition to that items or items which have led to the issuance of the notice under Section 148 and where reassessment is made under Section 147 of the Act in respect of the income which has escaped tax. The Income 1 ax Officers jurisdiction is confined to only such income which has escaped tax or has been under assessed. The initiation of reassessment proceedings does not mean that entire assessment proceedings are at large. It is not open to the assessee to put forward a claim for deduction of any expenditure which was inadvertently omitted in the original assessment proceedings, is not related income but is only under assessed. It is the only "under assessment" which is set aside and not the entire assessment when reassessment proceedings are initiated. Further a matter not agitated in the original proceedings also can not be permitted to be agitated in the reassessment proceedings unless the relateable items sought to be reassessed has escaped assessment. The relevant paragraph is quoted below: "as a result of the aforesaid discussion, we find that, in proceedings under Section 147 of the act, the Income-tax Officer may bring to charge items of income which had escaped assessment other than or in addition to that item or items which have led to the issuance of the no/ice under Section 148 and where reassessment is made under Section 147 in respect of income which has escaped tax, the Income -tax Officers jurisdiction is confined to only such income which has escaped tax or has been under assessed and does not extend to revising, reopening or reconsidering the whole assessment or permitting the assessee to reagitate questions which had been decided in the original assessment proceedings. It is only the underassessment which is set aside and not the entire assessment when reassessment proceedings are initiated. The Income -tax Officer cannot make an order of reassessment inconsistent with the original order of assessment in respect of matters which are not the subject matter of proceedings under Section 147. An assessee cannot resist validly initiated reassessment proceedings under this section merely by showing that other income which had been assessed originally was at too high a figure except in case under Section 152 (2 ). The words "such income" in Section 147 clearly refer to the income which is chargeable to tax but has " escaped assessment" and the Income-tax Officers jurisdiction under the section is confined only to such income which has escaped assessment. It does not extend to reconsidering generally the concluded earlier assessment. Claims which have been disallowed in the original assessment proceeding cannot be permitted to be reagitated on the assessment being reopened for bringing to tax certain income which had escaped assessment because the controversy on reassessment is confined to matters which are relevant only in respect of the income which had not been brought to tax during the course of the original assessment. A matter not agitated in the concluded original assessment proceedings also cannot be permitted to be agitated in the reassessment proceedings unless relatable to the item sought to be taxed as "escaped income". Indeed, in the reassessment proceedings for bringing to tax items which had escaped assessment, it would be open to an assessee to put forward claims for deduction of any expenditure in respect of that income or the non-taxability of the items at all. Keeping in view the object and purpose of the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act which are for the benefit of the Revenue and not an assessee, an assessee cannot be permitted to convert the reassessment proceedings as his appeal or revision, in disguise, and seek relief in respect of items earlier rejected or claim relief in respect of items not claimed in the original assessment proceedings, unless relatable to "escaped income", and reagitate the concluded matters. Even in cases where the claims of the assessee during the course of reassessment proceedings relating to the escaped assessment are accepted, still the allowance of such claims has to be limited to the extent to which they reduce the income to that originally assessed. Even in cases where the claims of the assessee during the course of reassessment proceedings relating to the escaped assessment are accepted, still the allowance of such claims has to be limited to the extent to which they reduce the income to that originally assessed. The income for purposes of "reassessment" cannot be reduced beyond the income originally assessed. " ( 10 ) FROM the proposition of law as set forth above it is clear that the matter not agitated in the original assessment proceedings also cannot be permitted to be agitated in the reassessment proceedings unless relateable items sought to be reassessed. ( 11 ) IN the present case the assessee respondent in the original assessment proceedings had not raised an issue regarding to the status of residence. He was assessed in the status of "resident". Section 6 of the Act lays down the tests of residence for an individual. The imposition of tax varies with the factor of residence. Under the Act the taxable entities are divided into three categories - (1) resident, (2) not ordinarily resident and (3) non-resident. Section 6 (5) of the Act provides that if a person is said to be resident in India in any previous year relevant to an assessment year in respect of any source of income, he shall be deemed to be resident in India in the previous year relevant to the assessment year in respect of each of his other sources of income. Meaning thereby, in a relevant assessment year a person can not be a resident in respect of some source of income and non-resident in respect of other sources of income. To put it differently an assessee cannot have different residential qualifications for the same assessment year in respect of the different sources of income. ( 12 ) THE upshot of the above discussion is that in the original assessment proceedings the assessee did not dispute his status as of "resident", could not change the status as of nonresident in reassessment proceedings. Law has been clarified by Section 6 (5) of the Act. In the original assessment proceedings the income of the assessee was taxed treating him as "resident", he could not be allowed to change it as "non-resident" in the return filed in response to reassessment notice. Law has been clarified by Section 6 (5) of the Act. In the original assessment proceedings the income of the assessee was taxed treating him as "resident", he could not be allowed to change it as "non-resident" in the return filed in response to reassessment notice. ( 13 ) IN the result we are of the definite view that the order of the Tribunal is legally not correct. ( 14 ) IN the result the above question is answered in negative i. e. In favour of the department and against the assessee. . .