Binayak Imagine & Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata V. DCIT, Cir. 7(1), Kolkata

ITA 519/KOL/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Binayak Imaging & Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the orders of the CIT(A) concerning various disallowances and additions made by the AO for the assessment year 2008-09. The primary issues included the rate of depreciation claimed on medical equipment, disallowance of employees' contributions to PF & ESI, and other financial adjustments. The Tribunal found that the equipment in question qualified as life-saving, thus eligible for a higher depreciation rate, and reversed the CIT(A)'s decision on this matter. However, it upheld the disallowance related to delayed deposit of employees' contributions to PF & ESI based on the Supreme Court's ruling. Other financial issues were sent back to the AO for further examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 127231 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2021
• Other Referred Cases: Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 80G

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘ए’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA ी राजेश क ु मार, लेखा सद य एवं ी संजय शमा या यक सद य के सम [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member &Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 519/Kol/2021 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Binayak Imaging & Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AACCB 3589 J) Vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata Appellant / (अपीलाथ ) Respondent / ( !यथ ) Date of Hearing / स ु नवाई क$ त&थ 23.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement/ आदेश उ)घोषणा क$ त&थ 11.08.2023 For the Appellant/ नधा /रती क$ ओर से Shri Miraj D Shah, A.R For the Respondent/ राज व क$ ओर से Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CITDR ORDER / आदेश Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] dated 01.10.2021 for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. Issue raised in ground no. 1 is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 2 I.T.A. No.519/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Binayak Imaging & Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. 3. Issue raised in ground nos. 2 and 3 by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1,05,69,276/- which was made by the AO by reducing the rate of depreciation equipments which according to the assessee were life saving where AO treated them as regular medical equipments such as USG Machine/ Monitor are not failing in the category of life saving medical equipments as specified u/s (xia) of the depreciation table as per IT Rules. 4. Facts in brief are that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assessee company has claimed depreciation @ 40% on life saving medical equipmentsamounting to Rs. 2,21,42,734/- and on other medical equipments of Rs. 3,078/-. According to AO, the depreciation was allowable @ 15% though the AO admitted that on life saving machines the assessee was entitled to depreciate @40% whereas on energy saving devices depreciates @ 80%. The AO observed that since the assessee is running an imaging and diagnostic pathologicalcentreand medical equipments installed for testing etc.were not life saving devices and machines by rejecting the contentions of the assessee that these were life saving medical equipments. Finally AO reduced the depreciation rate to 15% and made an addition of Rs. 1,05,69,276/- thereby allowing depreciation only to the extent of Rs. 1,15,73,457/- in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing and holding that the assessee has claimed depreciation @40% of medical equipments which were not life saving medical equipments as specified u/s (xia) of Depreciation Table as per I.T. Rules. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee is running a diagnostic/ pathological/ hospital centre on commercial basis. Therefore AO has rightly pointed out that the assessee has claimed higher depreciation percentage @ 40% even on regular medical equipments like USG machines, monitors, medical trolleys etc and thus upheld the order of AO wherein the depreciation of Rs. 1,05,69,276/- was disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. 3 I.T.A. No.519/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Binayak Imaging & Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. 6. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee is running a diagnostic pathological centre in order to carry out the medical tests and for the purpose of running such centre the assessee has purchased and installed some machines which accordingly to the assessee are life savingequipments.During the year the assessee has purchased following machines/equipments which were stated to be life savingequipments in the depreciation table as per IT Rules which is extracted below: i) D. C. Defibrillators for internal use and pace maker ii) Haemodialysors iii) Heart Lung machine iv) Cobalt Therapy unit v) Colour Doppler vi) SPECT Gamma Camera vii) Vascular Angiography system including Digital subtraction Angiography viii) Ventilator used with annaesthesia apparatus ix) Magnetic Resonance Imaging System x) Surgical Laser xi) Ventilators other than those used with anesthesia xii) Gamma Knife xiii) Bone marrow transplant equipment including silasticlogn standing intravenous catheters for chemotherapy 4 I.T.A. No.519/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Binayak Imaging & Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. xiv) Fibreoptic endoscopes including Paediatricresectoscope/audit resectoscope, peritoneoscopes, Arthoscope, Microlaryngoscope, Fibreoptics Flexible Nasal Pharyngo Bronchoscope, Fibreoptic Flexible Laryngo Bronchoscope, Video Laryngo Bronchoscope and video Oesophago Gastroscope, Stroboscope, Fibreoptic Flexible OesophagoGastroscope. xv) Laparoscope (single incision) Having considered the nature of equipments and medical/ diagnostic services rendered by the assessee, we are of the view that this devices / machines constitute life saving machines. According to authorities below since the assessee is running diagnostic and pathological centre for carrying of various tests and therefore the machines installed could not be treated as life saving machines which is not correct in our opinion as the assessee has been doing various tests on these machines which are crucial for life saving. Therefore to term these machines as medical equipments other than those which are life saving equipments is a wrong conclusion drawn by both the authorities below. Moreover, in the depreciation table as per IT Rules these equipments are specifically described as life saving equipments as has been tabled above. Considering this fact and circumstances we are inclined to reverse the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow depreciation @ 40%. 7. Issue raised in ground nos. 4 & 5 is against the disallowance of employees contribution to PF &ESI amounting to Rs. 69,448/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. 8. At the outset, we note that the grounds of appeal relate to disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delayed deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.69,448/-. Since the issue raised in the grounds taken by the assessee has been adjudicated by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) dated 12.10.2022 wherein it has been held that “deduction u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of delayed deposit of amount collected towards employees’ contribution to PF cannot be claimed when deposited within the due date 5 I.T.A. No.519/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Binayak Imaging & Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. of filing of return even when read with Section 43B of the Income-tax Act,1961.” Relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced as under: “• The deduction made by employers to approved provident fund schemes, is the subject matter of Section 36(1) (iv). It is noteworthy, that this provision was part of the original IT Act; it has largely remained unaltered. On the other hand, Section 36(1)(va) was specifically inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, w.e.f. 01-04-1988. Through the same amendment, by Section 3(b), Section 2(24) – which defines various kinds of "income" – inserted clause (x). This is a significant amendment, because Parliament intended that amounts not earned by the assessee, but received by it, - whether in the form of deductions, or otherwise, as receipts, were to be treated as income. The inclusion of a class of receipt, i.e., amounts received (or deducted from the employees) were to be part of the employer/assessee's income. Since these amounts were not receipts that belonged to the assessee, but were held by it, as trustees, as it were, Section 36(1)(va) was inserted specifically to ensure that if these receipts were deposited in the EPF/ESI accounts of the employees concerned, they could be treated as deductions. Section 36(1)(va) was hedged with the condition that the amounts/receipts had to be deposited by the employer, with the EPF/ESI, on or before the due date. The last expression "due date" was dealt with in the explanation as the date by which such amounts had to be credited by the employer, in the concerned enactments such as EPF/ESI Acts. Importantly, such a condition (i.e., depositing the amount on or before the due date) has not been enacted in relation to the employer's contribution (i.e., Section 36(1)(iv)). • The significance of this is that Parliament treated contributions under Section 36(1)(va) from those under Section 36(1)(iv). The latter (hereinafter, "employers' contribution") is described as "sum paid by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution towards a recognized provident fund". However, the phraseology of Section 36(1)(va) differs from Section 36(1)(iv). It enacts that "any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 apply, if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee's account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date." The essential character of an employees' contribution, i.e., that it is part of the employees' income, held in trust by the employer is underlined by the condition that it has to be deposited on or before the due date. • The differentiation is also evident from the fact that each of these contributions is separately dealt with in different clauses of Section 36 (1). All these establish that Parliament, while introducing Section 36(1)(va) along with Section 2(24)(x), was aware of the distinction between the two types of contributions. There was a statutory classification, under the IT Act, between the two. • There is no doubt that in Alom Extrusions, this court did consider the impact of deletion of second proviso to Section 43B, which mandated that unless the amount of employers' contribution was deposited with the authorities, the deduction otherwise permissible in law, would not be available. This court was of the opinion that the omission was curative, and that as long as the employer deposited the dues, before filing the return of income tax, the deduction was available. A reading of the judgment in Alom Extrusions, would reveal that this court, did not consider Sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va). Furthermore, the separate provisions in Section 36(1) for employers' contribution and employees' contribution, too went unnoticed. • When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer's contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee's contribution being considered as part of the employer's earning. On the application of the original principles of law it could have been treated only as receipts not amounting to income. When Parliament introduced the amendments in 1988-89, inserting Section 36(1)(va) and simultaneously inserting the second proviso of Section 43B, its intention was not to treat the disparate nature of the amounts, similarly. As discussed 6 I.T.A. No.519/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Binayak Imaging & Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. previously, the memorandum introducing the Finance Bill clearly stated that the provisions – especially second proviso to Section 43B - was introduced to ensure timely payments were made by the employer to the concerned fund (EPF, ESI, etc.) and avoid the mischief of employers retaining amounts for long periods. That Parliament intended to retain the separate character of these two amounts, is evident from the use of different language. Section 2(24)(x) too, deems amount received from the employees (whether the amount is received from the employee or by way of deduction authorized by the statute) as income - it is the character of the amount that is important, i.e., not income earned. Thus, amounts retained by the employer from out of the employee's income by way of deduction etc. were treated as income in the hands of the employer. The significance of this provision is that on the one hand it brought into the fold of "income" amounts that were receipts or deductions from employees income; at the time, payment within the prescribed time – by way of contribution of the employees' share to their credit with the relevant fund is to be treated as deduction (Section 36(1)(va)). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employers' contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)) and employees' contribution required to be deposited by the employer (Section 36(1)(va)) was maintained - and continues to be maintained. On the other hand, Section 43B covers all deductions that are permissible as expenditures, or out-goings forming part of the assessees' liability. These include liabilities such as tax liability, cess duties etc. or interest liability having regard to the terms of the contract. Thus, timely payment of these alone entitle an assessee to the benefit of deduction from the total income. The essential objective of Section 43B is to ensure that if assessees are following the mercantile method of accounting, nevertheless, the deduction of such liabilities, based only on book entries, would not be given. To pass muster, actual payments were a necessary pre- condition for allowing the expenditure. • The distinction between an employer's contribution which is its primary liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer's liability is to be paid out of its income whereas the second is deemed an income, by definition, since it is the deduction from the employees' income and held in trust by the employer. This marked distinction has to be borne while interpreting the obligation of every assessee under Section 43B. • The non-obstante clause in section 43B would not in any manner dilute or override the employer's obligation under section 36(1)(va) to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee's income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non-obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of Section 43B which is to ensure timely payment before the returns are filed, of certain liabilities which are to be borne by the assessee in the form of tax, interest payment and other statutory liability. In the case of these liabilities, what constitutes the due date is defined by the statute. Nevertheless, the assessees are given some leeway in that as long as deposits are made beyond the due date, but before the date of filing the return, the deduction is allowed. That, however, cannot apply in the case of amounts which are held in trust, as it is in the case of employees' contributions- which are deducted from their income. They are not part of the assessee employer's income, nor are they heads of deduction per se in the form of statutory pay out. They are others' income, monies, only deemed to be income, with the object of ensuring that they are paid within the due date specified in the particular law. They have to be deposited in terms of such welfare enactments. It is upon deposit, in terms of those enactments and on or before the due dates mandated by such concerned law, that the amount which is otherwise retained, and deemed an income, is treated as a deduction. Thus, it is an essential condition for the deduction that such amounts 7 I.T.A. No.519/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Binayak Imaging & Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. are deposited on or before the due date. If such interpretation were to be adopted, the non- obstante clause under Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee's contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction.” Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) which squarely covers the grounds taken by the assessee, the grounds no. 4 and 5 of the appeal of the assessee are hereby dismissed. 9. Issue raised in ground no. 6 is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 2,05,740/- as made by AO on account of deferred revenue expenditure. 10. The AO observed during the course of assessment proceedings that the assessee has claimed Rs. 2,05,740/- as deferred revenue expenditure for which the assessee has not furnished any details and accordingly the same was added to the income of the assessee. The ldCIT(A) also upheld the addition. In our opinion, issue is required to be examined at the end of AO and accordingly same is restored back to the file of AO with the direction to examine the evidences and decide the same de-novo after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.The ground is allowed for statistical purpose. 11. Issue raised in ground no. 7 is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 32,100/- by Ld. CIT(A) which was made by AO on account of deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act. 12. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the claim of the assessee of Rs. 32,100/- u/s 80G has been rejected by the AO on the ground that the certificate in respect of donation made was not furnished. We accordingly restore this issue back to the file of AO with the direction to examine the evidences of donation and decide the issue afresh. The ground is allowed for statistical purpose. 8 I.T.A. No.519/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Binayak Imaging & Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. 13. Issue raised in ground no. 8 is against the confirmation of addition of Rs. 60,50,594/- by the Ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO on account of disallowance of interest paid to entities from whom the unsecured loans were taken in earlier years. 14. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we note that the assessee has borrowed some loans from related parties in the earlier years and no interest was claimed. However during the year the AO observed that the assessee company has paid excessive interest by provisioning interest on said unsecured loans. According to the AO no copy of agreements or terms and conditions of the sum advanced by these interested parties were furnished before the AO and consequently the AO added the same to the income of the assessee. In our opinion the issue is required to be verified to the end of the AO. The assessee is also directed to produce necessary evidences for verification for smooth adjudication on this issue. Accordingly issue is restored to the file of the AO for de-novo adjudication. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee ispartly allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 11 th August, 2023 Sd/- Sd/- (Sonjoy Sarma /संजय शमा ) (Rajesh Kumar/राजेश क ु मार) Judicial Member/ या यक सद य Accountant Member/लेखा सद य Dated: 11 th August, 2023 SB, Sr. PS 9 I.T.A. No.519/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Binayak Imaging & Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Binayak Imaging & Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd., 4, Ho Chi Minh Sarani, Kolkata-700071 2. Respondent – DCIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata 3. Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail) True Copy By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata