Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Disha Eye Hospital Hooghly Pvt Ltd, ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 10 February, 2016
I . T. A . N o. 1 2 5 3 / KO L . / 2 0 1 3
Assessment year: 2008-2009
Page 1 of 8
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
KOLKATA 'B' BENCH, KOLKATA
Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member
and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member
I.T .A. No. 1253/KOL/ 2013
Assessment Year: 2008-2009
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,.... .............................Appellant
Circle-1, Hooghly,
Aayakar Bhawan, G. T. Ro ad,
Khadina More, Chins urah,
Hooghly-712 101
-Vs.-
M/s. Disha Eye Hospital Hooghly Pvt. Lim ited,.......................Re spondent
G.T. Ro ad,
Sheoraphu ly,
Hooghly-712 223
[PAN : AACCD 1704 H]
Appearances by:
Shri Sanjoy Mukherjee, JCIT, Sr. D.R., for the Department
Shri V.N . Purohit, FCA, fo r the assessee
Date of concluding th e hearing : February 08, 2016
Date of pronouncing the order : February 10, 2016
O R D E R
Per Shri P.M. Jagtap :-
This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXVI, Kolkata dated 06.12.2012 for the assessment year 2008-09.
2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 88 days on the part of the Revenue in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the Revenue has filed an application seeking condonation of the said delay and keeping in view the reasons given therein, we are of the view that there is a sufficient cause for the delay on the part of the Revenue in filing this appeal. We, therefore, condone the said delay and proceed to dispose of this appeal of the Revenue on merit.
I . T. A . N o. 1 2 5 3 / KO L . / 2 0 1 3 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 2 of 8
3. In Ground No. 1, the Revenue has challenged the action of the ld. CIT(Appeals) in deleting the disallowance of Rs.25,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of incentives paid by the assessee to some doctors.
4. The assessee in the present case is a Company, which is engaged in the business of running Eye Hospital. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 30.09.2008 declaring total income of Rs.1,04,97,505/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has paid incentive of Rs.25,50,000/- to only five doctors out of 15 doctors employed by it. He also noted that the said incentive was paid only at the fag end of the previous year and that too without any basis. He, therefore, held that the incentive paid by the assessee was not for the purpose of its business and accordingly the incentive paid was disallowed by him.
5. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of incentive paid to the doctors was challenged by the assessee in an appeal filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals). During the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals), the following submissions were made on behalf of the assessee in support of its claim of deduction on account of incentive paid to the doctors:-
"2.1 On page No. 2/3 of his order A.O. has given a list of Doctors including 5 doctors to whom incentives were paid totaling to Rs.25,50,000/-. The reasons given by A.O. for disallowance on page No. 3 of his order are summarized below:-
(i) Incentives were paid on the end of Financial Year on 29-03-2008.
(ii)Incentives were not proportionate to the remuneration.
(iii) No incentives were paid to 10 doctors out of 15 doctors.
(iv) In a hospital the patients come automatically.
I . T. A . N o. 1 2 5 3 / KO L . / 2 0 1 3 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 3 of 8
(v) (a) Specialist Doctors, according to agreement, may get excess remuneration or fee, but
(b) Payment of incentives to some of the doctors is apparently not a business expenditure.
2.2 The reasons as detailed above speaks for themselves and will be dealt hereafter. Before doing so it is humbly submitted that A.O. has no authority to tell a businessmen as to when and to whom incentives are to be given and to whom not. It is the sole prerogative of a businessman to take decision considering number of factors and commercial expediency. Once it is proved that payments were made by a/c payees cheques, payees are I.T. assessee and have disclosed receipt of incentive in their respective return as income and paid due taxes thereof and finally tax at source on such payment has been deducted by paying concern. All these elements are present. In fact, A.O. is not denying the payment but disputes the necessity of payment Copies of TDS certificates issued to all 15 doctors are enclosed confirming that all are I.T. PAN holders and tax was deducted including on incentives.
2.3 Replies to A.O.'s reason vide para 2.1 above for this disallowance are given hereafter:-
(i) It is but natural that incentives are decided after reviewing performance at the year end, number of patients attended, his popularity with and behaviour with patients etc.
(ii) Remuneration is a fixed monthly salary and cannot have relations with incentives amount to be decided by management.
There is no such business theories or concept that incentives for specific reasons must be proportionate to remuneration.
(iii) As stated, incentives are decided after review of performance from all angles as dealt in (i) above in behalf. Naturally it cannot be for all the doctors but only for selected view in the judgement of management which cannot be challenged by only outsider including I.T. authorities.
(iv) A.O. is not correct. Yes, after a hospital earns goodwill having in business for a good number of years, patients will come to that hospital but ultimately it is the Doctor who is material who will treat the patient in Hospital. Hospitals simply provides infrastructure facilities for treatment and it is the doctor alone who decides as to in which hospital he will get admitted his patient. This hospital is only 2 years old to earn self goodwill. Doctors are more important.
I . T. A . N o. 1 2 5 3 / KO L . / 2 0 1 3 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 4 of 8
(v) (a) The Doctors in case of eye ailment treatment are same except few one who are expert in lazor operation or FEFO operation. Specialists have their own fee structure and a Hospital need not enter into agreement. Doctors who were paid incentives were on the payroll of the Hospital and incentives were paid by decision of management to selected staff. Copy of Board of Directors resolution in this regard is enclosed. None of these doctors were relatives of the Directors to allege any favour.
b) Assessee could not understand logic or reason behind A.O.'s finding that incentives to some of the Doctors is apparently not business expenditure as he has not given any reason or material as to why it is apparently not a business expenditure. There is no question of 'apparent' but in real payments were made and tax was deducted at source. Copies of Form No.16A of these doctors are enclosed and collectively marked as Annexure. 'B' as referred in paragraph 2.2 above".
6. The above submissions made by the assessee were forwarded by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the Assessing Officer for the later's comments and after considering the comments offered by the Assessing Officer in his remand report as well as the counter comments offered by the assessee thereon, the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of incentive paid by the assessee to doctors for the following reasons given in his impugned order:-
"The submission of the AIR, gro und of appeal, assessment order and remand report were duly considered. Appell ant paid to some of the doctors fo r co mmercial expedienc y which is evident fro m the facts th at professional receipt s have increased fro m Rs. 2 crs to Rs.5 .74 crs which is approx 200% jump as compare d to last year. Similarly profit before t ax h as also jumped f rom Rs.17.77 Lakh to Rs.1.72 crs. T his sh arp increase in receipts and income is not possible without incentive to the professionals involved in this process. Appellant has just ificat ion for payment of th ese incentives, payment o f which can't be decided by outsiders. It is sole prerogative of t he appellant . Hence addit ion made by A.O. on account of incentive ofRs.25.5 Lakh is deleted. Appellant gets relief ofRs.25.5 Lakh" .
7. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. D.R. relied on the order of the Assessing Officer in support of the revenue's case on this issue, while the ld. Counsel for the assessee has strongly supported the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) giving relief to the assessee on this issue.
I . T. A . N o. 1 2 5 3 / KO L . / 2 0 1 3 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 5 of 8
8. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that all the objections raised by the Assessing Officer while making disallowance on account of incentive paid by the assessee to its doctor employees were properly met by the assessee by offering satisfactory explanation in respect of each and every objection. The submissions made by the assesese in this regard, which have been reproduced hereinabove, clearly show that the incentive paid by the assessee-company to some of its doctor employees was in the nature of expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred by the assessee for the purpose of its business of running Eye Hospital and there was no justification on the part of the Assessing Officer to disallow the same on the basis of relevant consideration. The increase in the professional receipts as well as the profit during the year under consideration completely justified the payment of incentive by the assessee-company to some of its doctor employees and since such incentive was paid as per the decision of the management taken on the basis of performance of its doctor employees, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(Appeals) was fully justified in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on this issue. The impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) giving relief to the assessee on this issue is, therefore, upheld dismissing the Ground No. 1 of the Revenue's appeal.
9. In Ground No. 3, the Revenue has challenged the action of the ld. CIT(Appeals) in deleting the disallowance of Rs.17,67,239/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest expenditure.
10. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has paid interest of Rs.26,44,264/- on the loan amount of Rs.2,24,53,271/- from related Company. It was also noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has cash and Bank balances of Rs.1,50,06,177/-. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee-Company thus had taken the loan from a related Company I . T. A . N o. 1 2 5 3 / KO L . / 2 0 1 3 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 6 of 8 inspite of having sufficient resources of fund in order to claim interest expenditure thereby reducing the taxable profit. He, therefore, disallowed proportionate interest of Rs.17,67,239/- as attributable to the loan amount not utilized for the purpose of business.
11. The disallowance of Rs.17,67,239/- made by the Assessing Officer out of interest expenditure was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and the following submissions were made on behalf of the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) in support of its claim on this issue.
"Assessee had taken un-secured loan fro m its peer o rganizatio n i.e. Dish a Eye Hospit al and Research Cent re Pvt. Lt d., Barrack pore (DISHA) to built the hospital and secured loan from Axis Bank.
Secured loan was sanctioned Rs.85,00,000/- vide letter dt . 22 -02-07 and one of the condition was that Term deposit NSC/ KVP worth Rs.1 ,00,00,000/- to be furnished. It was in this context that term deposit with Axis Bank were made and till loan is repaid assessee could not get back deposit with Axis· Bank fully unt il mat urity. As to unsecured loan, copies of ledger account s of assessee in D.E.H. & R.C. P. Ltd's book and their a/c in assessee' s books are enclosed for three years including year under reference.
Fro m these ledger accounts in the year 05-06 and 06-07 your Lordsh ip can see that assessee fo rmation charges were paid by t hem and deposit were made in Axis Bank (UTI Bank ) towards disbursement of secured loan as referred above. In the year under reference Rs.10 lacs were refunded and earnings were ut ilized in acquisition of assets worth Rs.3,05,80,698 /-. Hence question of re- payment of unsecured loan can never arise as th ere was no fund.
A.O. has totally confused himself only by seeing that there were loans t aken and fixed deposits in bank . He h as not gone in det ails as to why unsecured lo an taken and used for getting secured loan sanctio ned. The disal lowance of int erest Rs.17 ,72,239/- is wh olly arbit rary. Without proper appreciat ion of fact and for the sake of some heavy addition as no fault was found with audited account".
The above submissions made by the assessee were forwarded by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the Assessing Officer for the later's comments and after considering the comments offered by the Assessing Officer in the remand report as well as the counter comments offered by the assessee thereon, the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing I . T. A . N o. 1 2 5 3 / KO L . / 2 0 1 3 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 7 of 8 Officer out of interest observing that there was no diversion of borrowed funds by the assessee-company for non-business purpose.
12. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. D.R. relied on the order of the Assessing Officer in support of the Revenue's case on this issue, while the ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly supported the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) giving relief to the assessee on this issue.
13. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material available on record. As found by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on the basis of relevant facts and figures submitted by the assessee, the interest bearing funds borrowed by the assessee-company from its sister concern were not utilized for any non-business purpose or for personal benefits. As further found by the ld. CIT(Appeals), all these borrowe d funds were utilized by the assessee-company for the purpose of its business. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. D.R. has not been able to make out any case on behalf of the Revenue to dispute or controvert these findings of fact recorded by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in his impugned order while giving relief to the assessee on this issue. This being so, we find no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and upholding the same, dismiss Ground No. 2 of the Revenue's appeal.
14. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on February 10, 2016.
Sd/- Sd/-
(S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) (P.M. Jagtap)
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Kolkata, the 10 t h day of February, 2016
Copies to : (1) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, G. T. Ro ad, Khadina More, Chins urah, Hooghly-712 101 I . T. A . N o. 1 2 5 3 / KO L . / 2 0 1 3 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 8 of 8 (2) M/s. Disha Eye Hospital Hooghly Pvt. Lim ited, G.T. Ro ad, Sheoraphu ly, Hooghly-712 223 (3) Commissioner of Inco me-t ax (Appeals)-XXXVI, Kolk ata (4) Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata (5) The Depart ment al Represent ative (6) Guard File By order Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha/Sr. P.S.