Najeeb Ur Rehman vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 70(1)

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2023-24, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A).NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2026-27/1090364934(1) dated 24.06.2026, involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ respective assessments and lower appellate findings assessing him u/s 44ADA rather than u/s 44AD of the Act. This is for the precise reason that they have treated his total receipts of Rs. 32,10,294/- as technical consultancy since subjected to TDS deduction u/s 194J of the Act. This is what forms the sole substantive issue for the tribunal’s apt adjudication in the instant appeal.

Learned departmental representative’s vehement argument that both the learned lower authorities have gone by the TDS deduction details so as to assess the assessee u/s 44ADA of the Act. Learned counsel on the other hand refers to the assessee’s agreement clause wherein his actual services performed are that of design and new looks in the hairstyle industry which could not have been termed as technical in nature. I thus find merit in the assessee’s instant sole substantive issue and direct him to be assessed u/s 44ADA of the Act in very terms. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.