2017 (10) TMI 681 - AT - Income Tax

TDS treatment given in respect of categories of doctors as Consultants - deduction of tax at source has been made u/s 192 in respect of employee doctors while the tax deduction u/s 194J has been made in respect of five categories of medical consultants - Held that - The issue has been decided by the ITAT for financial year 2009-10, in favour of the assessee, therefore, the tax has been deducted under the correct provisions of law. In view of the order of Tribunal, the order of A.O dated 10.02.2012 relates to financial year 2010- 11 under appeal is not sustainable.

Summary

Issues:
- Treatment of TDS for different categories of doctors
- Jurisdiction of TDS Circle
- Classification of doctors as consultants or employees
- Challenge to orders passed by TDS Circle and CIT(A)
- Decision based on ITAT order for preceding financial year
- Dismissal of departmental appeal

Analysis:
1. Treatment of TDS for different categories of doctors:
The appeal concerns the TDS treatment given by the assessee to various categories of doctors, including Visiting Consultants, Doctors on Revenue Share, Senior Doctors, and Junior Doctors. The TDS returns filed by the assessee show deductions made under different sections of the Income Tax Act for employee doctors and medical consultants.

2. Jurisdiction of TDS Circle:
There was a jurisdictional issue regarding the TDS Circle responsible for assessing the assessee. The High Court quashed the order of the TDS Circle in Gurgaon for the financial year 2009-10, leading to the assessment remaining only for the financial year 2010-11.

3. Classification of doctors as consultants or employees:
The TDS Circle in Delhi initially treated certain categories of doctors as salaried employees instead of consultants, leading to demands for TDS under section 192 of the Act. However, the CIT(A) modified this order, classifying some doctors as consultants and others as employees.

4. Challenge to orders passed by TDS Circle and CIT(A):
The orders passed by the TDS Circle in Delhi for the financial year 2009-10 were challenged before the CIT(A), who modified the assessment. The ITAT later upheld the assessee's contention that all categories of doctors were consultants.

5. Decision based on ITAT order for preceding financial year:
The decision for the financial year 2010-11 was influenced by the ITAT's order for the preceding year, where the Tribunal had ruled in favor of the assessee, classifying all categories of doctors as consultants and deleting the entire addition.

6. Dismissal of departmental appeal:
In the present appeal, the revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to follow the ITAT order for the preceding year and delete the demand raised for the financial year 2010-11. Despite the departmental appeal pending before the High Court, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing consistency with the previous ITAT ruling.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the demand for the assessment year under appeal based on the ITAT's classification of doctors as consultants for the preceding financial year.