Itta/196/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) v. M/S. Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULYTWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICESRI KALYAN JYOTI SEN GUPTA AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI I.T.T.A. No.196 OF 2013 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS)Hyderabad. ..... Appellant AND M/s. Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital,Shirdi Apartments, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. .....Respondent The Court made the following : JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri K.J. Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred against thejudgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated30.06.2010 in relation to the assessment year 2008-2009,on the following suggested questions of law: 1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in settingaside the order passed against the assessee underSecs.201 and 201(A) of the Income Tax Act? 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal thatthere existed no relationship of employer andemployee between the assessee and ConsultantDoctors, employed in the Hospital, can be said to bebased on material on record?the case, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal thatthere existed no relationship of employer andemployee between the assessee and ConsultantDoctors, employed in the Hospital, can be said to bebased on material on record? The whole issue involved in this matter is whether thedoctors are employees of the assessee or not, if so,payment made to the doctors are treated to be salaries soas to attract the provisions of Sec. 192 of the Income TaxAct. Learned Tribunal as well as the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals), on fact and on examining thedocument – agreement of engagement of the consultantdoctors by the assessee, found that there is no relationshipof employer and employee. After examining the agreementand various terms and conditions, it was found that thedoctors are not administratively controlled or managed bythe assessee and they are free to come at any point of timeas far as their attendance is concerned and treat thepatients. In the agreement, there is no provison for paymentof any provident fund and gratuity. The only clause in theagreement is that the doctors cannot take up any otherassignment. Reading the agreement as a whole, both theauthorities below observed that the existence of oneprohibitory clause, as stated above, does not change the basic character of the relationship between the assesseeand the doctors concerned. On fact, the Tribunal found thatthere is no employer and employee relationship and theirpayment cannot be treated to be salaries and, as such,deduction cannot be made under Sec.192 of the IncomeTax Act. We are of the view that the application of lawdepends upon the appreciation of facts. This court inexercise of the jurisdiction under Sec. 260A of the IncomeTax Act, cannot re-appreciate the facts or substitute its ownappreciation when appreciation of facts of both theauthorities below was found to be rational and possible ongiven fact. The appreciation reached by both the authoritiesbelow has to be accepted by this court. On the given facts,this court can only examine whether the law has beenapplied properly or not. On careful reading of the impugnedjudgment and order, we are of the view that the law hasbeen correctly applied. Therefore, we do not find anyquestion of law involved in this matter. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as tocosts. ______________________ Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ. July 04, 2013MAS __________G.Rohini, J.