DCIT (TDS), Chandigarh v. M/s Kamesh Bhargava Hospital & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., Mohali

ITA 821/CHANDI/2013 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 82121514 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AABCI4594F
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 821/CHANDI/2013
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant DCIT (TDS), Chandigarh
Respondent M/s Kamesh Bhargava Hospital & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., Mohali
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 18-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 18-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 14-10-2013
Next Hearing Date 14-10-2013
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 05-08-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 818/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 THE DCIT(TDS) VS M/S IVY HEALTH LIFE SCIENCE PV T LTD. CHANDIGARH MOHALI PAN NO. AABCI4594F APPELLANT BY : SHRI. J.S.NAGAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HARJIT SINGH & ITA NOS. 819 TO 821/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 2010-11 &2011-12 THE DCIT(TDS) VS M/S KAMLESH BHARGAVA HOSPITAL & CHANDIGARH RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD. (SILVER OAKS HOSPITAL) MOHALI PAN NO. AAACK7161P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DATE OF HEARING : 14/10/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18/10/2103 APPELLANT BY : SHRI. J.S.NAGAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VINEET KRISHAN ORDER PER BENCH THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A) CHANDIGARH. FIRST WE WILL TAKE UP THE APP EAL IN ITA NO. 818/CHD/2013. 2 ITA NO. 818/CHD/2013 2. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 01.05.2013 OF CIT (APPEALS) CHANDIGARH. 3. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEA L :- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) CHANDIGARH HAS ERRED IN LAW IN D ELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO W AS NOT RIGHT IN CONCLUDING THAT THERE EXISTED AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOY EE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AND THE PROFESSIONAL DOCTORS A ND IN TREATING THE PR AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1) OF THE ACT FOR SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE BY TAKING THE AMOUNTS TO BE U/S 192 AND NOT U/S 194J AND IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 201(1A) O F THE ACT ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- I) THE LD. CIT(A) CHANDIGARH HAS RELIED UPON THE F OLLOWING CASE LAWS GIVEN BY THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE:- A) DCIT VS. YASHODA SUPER SPECIALLY HOSPITAL (2010) 133 TTJ 17 (HYD) ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH B B) CIT VS. DEEP NURSING HOME & CHILDREN HOSPITAL (2 008) 169 TAXMAN 189 (PUNJ. & HAR) C) ITO VS. CALCUTTA MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE (200 ) 75 ITD 484 (CAL) IN THE ITAT CALCUTTA BENCH E D) ITO VS. APOLLO HOSPITALS INTERNATIONAL LTD. ITA NO. 3363/AHD/2008-A.Y. 2007-08. II) THE FACTS OF THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE ASSESS EE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE PRESENT CASE AS THE DOCTORS ENGAGED IN TH E ABOVE HOSPITALS WERE PART-TIME CONSULTANTS WHEREAS THE DO CTORS IN THE PRESENT CASE WERE FULL TIME CONSULTANTS ENGAGED BY THE HOSPITAL AND AS PER THE AGREEMENTS SIGNED BETWEEN THE HOSPIT AL AND THE DOCTORS THE DOCTORS WERE EXCLUSIVELY MEANT TO WORK FOR THE ASSESSEE HOSPITAL AND WERE NOT PERMITTED TO DO THEIR OWN PRI VATE PRACTICE OR WITH ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION. III) THE LD. CIT(A) CHANDIGARH HAS ALSO NOT APPREC IATED THE FACTS ESTABLISHED BY THE AO THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASES ( CASE LAWS) QUOTED 3 BY THE ASSESSEE WERE TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE CAS E IN HAND AND FROM THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE WRITTEN AGREEM ENTS BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AND THE DOCTORS IT STANDS P ROVED THAT THE HOSPITAL AUTHORITIES HAD FULL CONTROL OVER THE DOCTORS AS TH EIR WORKING HOURS & WORKING DAYS WERE FIXED BY THE EMPLOYER AND THEY WERE ALSO SUPPOSED TO DO THE OTHER WORKS RELATED TO THE HOSPI TAL ACTIVITIES AS AND WHEN REQUIRED. FROM THIS IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE EXISTED AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AND DOCTORS. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT A S URVEY WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS NOTICED THAT HOSP ITAL HAD ENGAGED SERVICES OF CERTAIN DOCTORS AND THEIR WORKING HOURS ETC. WERE FIXED BY THE HOSPITAL. THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TAX U/S 194J OF THE ACT. ACC ORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER SUCH DOCTORS WERE IN THE NATURE OF EMPLOYEES AND T HEREFORE TAX SHOULD BE DEDUCTED BY TREATING THE REMUNERATION AS SALARY U/S 192 OF THE ACT. 5. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING HIS EARLIER ORDER WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE RELIEF. 6. BEFORE US LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS.731 & 732/CHD/2012. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSE ES OWN CASE IN ITA NOS.731 & 732/CHD/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2010- 11. THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED IN THE CONCLUDING PARA NO. 8 AS UNDER:- 8. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT AND SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE SYNOPSIS REVE ALS THAT THERE DOES NOT EXIST EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 4 THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT AND THE PERSONS PROVIDING PR OFESSIONAL SERVICES. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE AGREEMENT IN ITS ENTIRETY VIS-A VIS THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT IT IS EVIDENT THAT IT IS NOT AS CASE OF EMPLOYER-EM PLOYEE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT AND THE DOCTORS. THEREFORE HAVING REGARD TO THE DETAILED ANALYSIS A ND FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF QUESTION IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) SUFFER FROM AN Y INFIRMITY. IN VIEW OF THIS FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ARE UPHELD. 9. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE WE FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 10. IN THE RESULT REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NOS. 819 820 & 821/CHD/2013 11. THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 1.5.2013 & 13.5.2013 OF CIT(A) CHANDIG ARH. 12. IN THESE APPEALS ALSO THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS THE SAME AS DISCUSSED IN THE ABOVE NOTED CASE IN ITA NO. 818/CHD/32013 I.E. WHET HER TDS HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DEDUCTED U/S 194J OR NOT. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DEC ISION WE HOLD THAT THE DOCTORS CANNOT BE DESCRIBED AS EMPLOYEES OF THE ASS ESSEE AND THEREFORE THE TDS WAS RIGHTLY DEDUCTED U/S 194J OF THE ACT. ACCO RDINGLY WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 13. IN THE RESULT APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 18.10.20 13 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R.SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMER DATED : 18 TH OCTOBER 2013 RKK 5 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR