BRAHMA FARM SERVICES AND RESEARCH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.3376/PUN/2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2024-25 Brahma Farm Services And Vs. Assessment Unit, Research, Income Tax Department. 17/1 A Dhawade Wasti, Nesar Maruti Mandir, Bhosari, Pune- 411039. PAN : ABBFB9906E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue by : Shri Rohit P. Nagar Date of hearing : 15.10.2026 Date of pronouncement : 21.10.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 02.06.2026 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2024-25. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Act it be held that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by Ld AO of Rs.22,24,200/- by incorrectly applying provisions of section 44ADA instead of section 44AD of the Act. The addition so made be held to be unwarranted, unjustified, and contrary to the

2 ITA No.3376/PUN/2026 provisions and scheme of the Act and be deleted. The Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 2. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Act it be held that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by Ld AO of Rs. 30,835/- towards increase in turnover as reported in updated return even when such return was not accepted by Ld. AO. The addition so made be held to be unwarranted, unjustified, and contrary to the provisions and scheme of the Act and be deleted. The Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 3. The Appellant craves leave to alter, DLEETE, modify, add OR amend any ground of appeal.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of poultry, poultry farming business, animal husbandry products related services. The assessee filed its return of income on 31.07.2024 declaring a total income of Rs.3,21,480/- for the year under consideration and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act on 27.12.2024. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify substantial receipt u/s 194J and income shown u/s 44AD instead of section 44ADA of the IT Act. Accordingly, the notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 23.06.2025. During the assessment proceeding, the Assessing Office observed that the assessee has offered the income u/s 44AD of the IT Act, however, as per Form 26AS the assessee received income on which TDS u/s 194J of the IT Act has been

3 ITA No.3376/PUN/2026 deducted and hence, notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act was issued and also show cause notice was issued on 27.01.2026 proposing to apply provisions of section 44ADA as applicable to professionals instead of 44AD as applicable for other specified business. In response to various notices, the assessee submitted along-with necessary evidence that the assessee is not into any professional services as provided u/s 44ADA of the IT Act and is in fact into poultry business and is entrusted by NCH India Pvt. Ltd from whom the assessee has received contractual payment, however, NCH India Pvt. Ltd has wrongly deducted TDS u/s 194J instead of 194C of the IT Act on such payments. The assessee also submitted a clarification letter from NCH India Pvt. Ltd. wherein NCH India Pvt. Ltd clarified that the engagement of assessee is strictly under contractual assignment on TDS of 2% is applicable, however, TDS at 10% is deducted only to comply with internal policy. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the submission of the assessee and passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the IT Act treating the receipt from NCH India Pvt. Ltd as professional receipt covered u/s 44ADA and not eligible for presumptive taxation u/s 44AD of the IT Act thereby making an addition of Rs.22,24,200/-.

4 ITA No.3376/PUN/2026 The Assessing Officer also added Rs.30,835/- as reported by the assessee in updated return filed on 21.07.2025 even when such updated return was not accepted by the Assessing Officer on the ground that such return is filed after initiation of assessment proceedings for the year under consideration. 4. Aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee has preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee requested before the bench to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC so that the assessee can substantiate the grounds of appeal. 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue did not raised any objection if the matter is remanded back to Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, however, submitted that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC may be directed to verify the exact nature of transaction entered into by the assessee and for this purpose the assessee may also be directed to produce relevant sales/service bills before Ld.

5 ITA No.3376/PUN/2026 CIT(A)/NFAC so that the exact nature of the transaction can be determined. 8. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that it is the claim of the assessee that this is the only year in which the assessee undertook above business and neither in any of the previous year nor in any of the subsequent year it has done above activity, therefore, there is no record of the assessee which suggests that the activity undertook by the assessee partnership firm is a provision of services or is a normal business activity. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to decide the appeal afresh and as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and also after verifying the sale bills and other relevant material and agreements, if any, with the other party. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and to produce submissions, documents and evidences in support of its contentions that the

6 ITA No.3376/PUN/2026 transaction entered into by the assessee is a normal business transaction covered u/s 44AD of the IT Act and does not fall in the category of professional services subject to taxation u/s 44ADA of the IT Act, since TDS on receipt was deducted as professional fee u/s 194JB of the IT Act. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 21st day of October, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 21st October, 2026. Sujeet/DOC आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब�च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, Sunil Kumar Digitally signed by Sunil Kumar // True Copy // More More Assistant Registrar Date: 2026.10.24 17:04:28 +05'30' आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.