DINESH CHANDRA DAS,MOHISGOTE KRISHNAPUR vs. ITO WARD -50(1),KOLKATA, MANICKTALA CIVIC CENTRE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No(s). 1523/KOL/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2020-21 Dinesh Chandra Das ITO, Ward-50(1), Kolkata Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AKVPD7519C Appearances: Assessee represented by : Samares Choudhury, AR. Department represented by : Sandip Kumar, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 22.07.2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 12.08.2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for AY 2020-21 dated 26.02.2026. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: "1. The Assessment order dated 28/11/2025 (DIN: - ITBA/AST/S/147/2025-26/1083135925(1)) passed U/S 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the IT act 1961 is not in accordance with law and is liable to be quashed. 2. The Addition of Rs. 11,55,077/- to total income of Rs. 6,24,450/- as per ITR U/S 139 made by the Ld. A.O. in order to arrive at total income assessed of Rs. 17,79,527/- is not supported by law and accordingly such addition of Rs. 11,55,077/- to total income assessed is to be deleted.

“5. DECISION: I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant and the written submissions filed before the undersigned. The issue for adjudication relates to the addition of Rs. 11,55,077/- made on account of alleged understatement of receipts and overstatement of expenses in respect of the business carried on by the appellant through M/s Metropolis Pathological Collection Centre and the consequential denial of benefit of presumptive taxation u/s 44AD of the Act. 6. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment on the basis of information received from the Insight Portal pursuant to a search and seizure action u/s 132 in the case of Metropolis Healthcare Limited, wherein it was found that payments made by Metropolis Healthcare Limited to its collection centres under B2B agreements were subjected to tax deduction at source u/s 194J and constituted professional receipts. The Assessing Officer observed that the appellant, who is engaged in running a pathological collection centre and clinic, had offered his income on a presumptive basis u/s 44AD, though the said provision is not applicable to persons engaged in professions specified u/s 44AA(1), including the medical profession, in view of section 44AD(6). On verification of invoices and information obtained from Metropolis Healthcare Limited and the appellant's bank statements, the Assessing Officer found that the actual gross pathology collection charges for the year amounted to Rs. 26,77,091/- as against Rs. 15,46,550/- shown in the books of the appellant and that the charges paid to Metropolis Healthcare Limited were Rs. 10,57,835/- as

“44AD. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sections 28 to 43C, in the case of an eligible assessee engaged in an eligible business, a sum equal to eight per cent of the total turnover or gross receipts of the assessee in the previous year on account of such business or, as the case may be, a sum higher than the aforesaid sum claimed to have been earned by the eligible assessee, shall be deemed to be the profits and gains

Deputy/Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata