TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ospital or are they issued to the assessee hospital by MRI Centre, who in turn issue the test results in their own letterheads. It is thus noted that none of these aspects have been looked into by the lower authorities. Neither the assessee nor the lower authorities have been able to bring on record the correct facts as to the relationship between the assessee and the MRI company viz., whether it is a principal-agent or principal - principal relationship. Hence, the contentions raised by the assessee before us remains unsubstantiated and unverified. Upon query from the Bench, the Ld. AR had claimed that the MRI company had deducted taxes on the fees of Rs.25 lacs paid to the Hospital for the collection supervisory services rendered by it, but no evidence in support thereof was placed before us. According to us, all these factors needs to be analyzed to decide about the nature of relationship and the relevant facts needs to be ascertained as to whether the payments were in the nature of reimbursements or not. The questions raised before us are mixed question of facts and law. Since none of the above aspects and the relevant facts have been properly looked into and examine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal. 4. We note that the aforesaid order is applicable for all the three (3) captioned assessment years as per the order dated 01.06.2022 of this Tribunal. And so we have to adjudicate ground no. 1, 1.1 and 1.2 which is common for all the captioned AYs. With the consent of both the parties, appeal of AY. 2008-09 is taken as lead case and the relevant grounds reads as under: - 1. Appellant submits that it had collected MRI charges from patients of hospital the said amount was paid back to Bombay MRI Pvt. Ltd. as per the Memorandum of Understanding dated 1-04-2006. Hence question of deduction of tax at source does not arise. Therefore, the levy of interest of Rs.2,18,892/- u/s 201(1A) is unwarranted, unlawful unjustified. Hence, the same be deleted. 1.1 Without prejudice to above, appellant submits the TDS is to be deducted by person who is responsible for paying to a resident any sum by way of fees for professional or technical services u/s 194J. Appellant submits these services were not rendered to the hospital but to the patients hence there was no liability to deduct tax at source by the appellant. Hence levy of interest of Rs.2,18,892/- under section 201(1A) is c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (12) In consideration of Hospital allowing the company to carry on MRI Centre as stated above the company shall pay to the Hospital Rs.25 Lakhs per annum exclusive of taxes if any, as compensation which shall by payable on monthly basis. (15) This agreement shall remain in force upto 30th June 2014 business end. 7. According to the Ld. AR, the assessee had permitted the MRI company to operate its MRI facility within its hospital premises and act as a coordinating agency to supervise and collect the charges from the patients as stipulated by the MRI company. He submitted that, during treatment when the hospital advices the patients undergoing treatment with it to get certain MRI tests carried out, they get it done through the Bombay MRI Pvt. Ltd. which is functioning from its premises and the assessee hospital only supervises and collects the prices/fees on behalf of Bombay MRI Pvt. Ltd. This is done as a matter of overall administrative convenience and to ensure unity and coordinated supervision at the Hospital where the patients are required to pay the aggregate fees for their treatments including the MRI testings at one place i.e. to the Hospital. In turn, the fees/bills o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e MRI company and therefore the payments were liable to TDS. Relying on the order of the AO, he contended that the MRI services which were been rendered by the payee in the Hospital involved professional skill, technical knowledge etc. and therefore according to the Ld. CIT, DR, the AO has rightly applied the provisions of Section 194J in the facts of the present case. According to Ld DR therefore, even though the assessee got relief from the AO against the action u/s 201(1) of the Act because the recipient (Bombay MRI Centre Pvt. Ltd.) in its ROI had offered the payments for tax, that fact would not absolve the assessee s liability u/s 201(1A) of the Act to pay interest on non-deducting of tax u/s 194J of the Act and so he urged that we should not interfere with the impugned order on this issue. 9. We have heard both the parties on this issue and also perused the material placed before us. The main contention raised by the assessee before us is that, it is not required to withhold tax on the payments made to the MRI company since it is only acting as a collection agent on its behalf. The assessee states that, it is receiving fees from the patients who have availed MRI services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
