IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4728/MUM/2025 (AY:2018–19)

Hemant Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO (42)(1)(2)

Jayesh Sanghrajka And Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai Co.LLP, 405-408, Hind Rajasthan Centre, D.S.

Phalke Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai-400014 PAN: ABGP0055Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri. Margav Shukla Revenue by Shri. Adesh Rai, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 24/12/2025 Date of Pronouncement 30/01/2026 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the orders of CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi (in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’), dated 15.05.2025 for the Assessment Year 2018-19, which in term arises from the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 10.03.2021, passed by National E- assessment Centre, Delhi (in short ‘the Ld. AO’). The grounds of the appeal raised by the assessee, reads as under:

“1- On the given facts circumstances and judicial precedents, the assessment order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre is without a valid and verifiable Document Identification Number (DIN), in violation of CBDT Circular No 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019. Such assessment order passed without valid DIN is liable to be Quashed.

2- On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in denying applicability of provisions of section 44ADA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on remuneration received from the firm assessee satisfies all conditions as prescribed under the provision. Such denial of applicability of provisions of Section 44ADA is erroneous and bad in law and liable to be allowed.

3- Without prejudice to the above, On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in denying applicability of provisions of section 44ADA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on remuneration received by Practicing Chartered Accountant holding Certificate of Practice. Such denial of applicability of provisions of Section 44ADA is erroneous and bad in law and liable to be allowed.

4- The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter OR delete all OR any of the previously mentioned grounds of appeal.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a practicing Chartered Accountant working in capacity of the associate full- time partner with a firm M/s Jayesh Sanghrajka and Co. LLP. During the year under consideration the assessee had received remuneration of Rs. 18,00,000/- from the aforesaid LLP and the said remuneration has been shown as gross receipt from the business and profession in ITR. Following the provisions of section 44ADA of the Act, 50% of the income was shown at Rs. 9,00,000/- on presumptive basis. It was the case of Ld.AO that as the special provisions of section 44ADA, to compute the profit and gains on presumptive basis, would be available, in the case of assessee, being a resident in India, who is engaged in a profession referred to in sub-sec (1) of Sec. 44AA and whose total gross receipts do not exceed Rs. 50 Lakh in the relevant previous year, on account of such profession a sum equal to 50% of the said gross receipts or as the case may be, a sum higher than the 50% of gross receipt claimed to have been earned by the assessee shall be deemed to be profit and gains of such profession chargeable to tax under the head profits and gains of business or profession.

3. The Ld.AO observed that the assessee is not doing his business on his own independently, he is engaged in the business of Chartered Accountant and is the partner of firm during the work allotted to him. Therefore, the remuneration received by the assessee would not fall within ambit of word “gross receipts”, which pertains to sales turnover and no other meaning can be given to the said words. Accordingly, it is construed by the Ld.AO that remuneration received by the assessee from partnership firm cannot be treat