Presumptive taxation under section 44AD cannot be replaced by a 50% professional rate without basis in law or facts.

Section 44AD and section 44ADA operate in distinct, mutually exclusive fields: 44AD applies to eligible businesses on a presumptive basis, while 44ADA is confined to specified professions at 50%. The Assessing Officer applied a 50% rate by analogy to section 44ADA without establishing that the assessee was carrying on a notified profession or producing material to displace the declared presumptive income under section 44AD. As the turnover was accepted and no suppression of receipts or inflation of expenses was shown, the declared income under section 44AD was accepted and the substitution of the 50% rate was treated as legally unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the income declared under section 44AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and in estimating the assessee's income by applying a rate of 50% (akin to section 44ADA) instead of accepting the presumptive income declared under section 44AD for A.Y. 2020-21.

Analysis: The statutory scheme shows that section 44AD applies to eligible businesses with prescribed presumptive rates (8% or 6% in specified cases) while section 44ADA applies exclusively to specified professions with a presumptive rate of 50%. The two provisions operate in distinct and mutually exclusive fields. The Assessing Officer invoked a 50% rate traceable to section 44ADA without establishing that the assessee was engaged in a notified profession. The assessee declared income under section 44AD and declared presumptive income substantially above the statutory minimum. The Assessing Officer accepted the gross receipts and confined assessment to the declared turnover, thereby not challenging turnover correctness, eligibility for section 44AD, or showing suppression of receipts or inflation of expenses-conditions necessary to substitute the statutory presumptive rate. Estimation must be supported by cogent material and conform to statutory provisions; substitution of the applicable statutory rate without legal foundation is arbitrary. The nature of the bank receipts as BC merchant transactions, and the fact that the AO accepted turnover, reinforces that the statutory framework of section 44AD should apply rather than section 44ADA.

Conclusion: The income declared by the assessee under section 44AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is accepted; the application of a 50% rate by the Assessing Officer based on section 44ADA is erroneous. The addition of Rs. 2,15,389/- is deleted and the returned income is to be accepted in favour of the assessee.

---