9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued under Section 148A(b) do not justify the conclusion that the petitioner is not a professional. Unless the Department has the document to substantiate that the petitioner is an employee in the respective hospitals, from whom the petitioner has received consideration and deductions were made wrongly under Section 194J instead of 192, the Department cannot re-open the assessment. The petitioner being an Anesthesiologist is consulting in several hospitals and thus, has received remuneration for the services rendered to these hospitals, although on monthly basis. There is no justification in reopening the assessment. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g total income of Rs. 20,52,400/- in ITR-3 instead of ITR-1/ITR-2 for the AY 2018-19 and claiming various expenses and depreciation resulting in reduction of taxable Income. Hence it is ascertained that there is an escapement of income for the AY 2018-19. In view of the above, I have reason to believe U/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in your case for the A.Y 2018-19 So, you are required to show-cause, why a notice U/s. 148 should not be issued on the basis of the above information in which suggest that income changeable to tax has escaped assessment in your case for the A.? 2018-19. 5. The petitioner has replied as under: 1. I am an independently practicing doctor in the field of anaes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice u/s 148 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 for the AY 2018-19. This order is passed with prior approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Madurai-1, Madural. 7. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a professional and therefore, the petitioner has rightly filed returns in ITR-3 and the tax was rightly deducted by the hospitals, to which the petitioner has provided services under Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. It is submitted that there are no records to even show that the petitioner was the employee of the 15 different hospitals at the same time. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court rendered in Dr.Mathew Cherian and others Vs. Assistant Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esponsibility for their medical decisions and actions and the hospital bears no responsibility in this regard is also of paramount importance, relevant to determine the nature of the relationship as being one of equals, rather than one of master-servant. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance of the Tribunal in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kovai Medical Centre and Hospital Ltd., reported in (2023) 151 taxmann.com 256 (Chennai-Trib) and submits that the impugned order is liable to be quashed, as it was ignoring the functional aspect that the petitioner is a mere professional, who had filed returns in ITR-3, claimed the benefit of Section 44ADA and had rightly paid the tax. 11. On the other hand, the lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
