ADDL CIT (TDS) RG 2, MUMBAI V. JASLOK HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE, MUMBAI

ITA 7147/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8285 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 29-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PRAKASH MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: INDRA G ANAND
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Principle of natural justice; Bonafide belief; Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES I, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL (J.M.) AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA (A.M.) ITA NO. 8751/MUM /2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 ITA NO. 7147/MUM /2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(TDS) RANGE -2, ROOM NO. 702, SMT. K.G. MITTAL AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL BUILDING, CHARNI ROAD, MUMBAI 400002. VS. M/S JASLOK HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE, 15, DR. G. DESHMUKH MARG, MUMBAI 400 026. PAN AAAAJ0028Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI OM PRAKASH MEENA ASSESSEE BY : MS. INDRA G. ANAND DATE OF HEARING 29-10-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07-11-2012 O R D E R PER DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL, J.M. THESE TWO APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIR ECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DTD. 30-9-2010 AND 15-7-2011 PA SSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) -14, MUMBAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND COMMON ISSUE IS INVOLVED, BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON O RDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO. 8751/MUM/2010 & ITA NO. 7147/MUM/2011 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE EXTRACTED FROM ITA NO. 8751/MUM/2010 FOR A.Y. 2007-08 ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A CHARITABLE TRUST RUNNING HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE IN THE C ITY OF MUMBAI. A SURVEY U/S 133 A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE A CT) WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 19-9-2007. THE A .O. WHILE PASSING ORDERS U/S 201(1)/201(1A) HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE A N ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1) AND LEVIED INTEREST U/S 201(1A) IN RESPE CT OF THE FOLLOWING PAYMENTS: (I) DRUG HANDLING CHARGES, (II) PROVISION FOR DOCTORS FEES PAYABLE & (III) EQUIPMENT HIRE CHARGES. AS FAR AS DRUG HANDLING CHARGES AND TDS ON PROVISION OF DOCTOR FEES ARE CONCERNED, NO PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED BY THE A.O. AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED TH E QUANTUM APPEAL. HOWEVER, HE HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY ON NON-DEDUCT ION OF TDS FROM EQUIPMENT HIRE CHARGES PAID TO THE DOCTORS. ACCORDI NGLY A NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S. 271-C OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BY THE A.O. TO S HOW CAUSE AS TO WHY PENALTY U/S 271-C OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY VIDE LETTER DTD. 17-6-2009 WHI CH HAS BEEN EXTRACTED BY THE A.O. IN PARA 3 OF THE ORDER AS UNDER:- .PENALTY U/S 271C IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY LEVIABLE I N CASE OF NON- COMPLIANCE WITH THE TDS PROVISIONS UNDER CHAPTER XV II-B, BUT IS SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. .IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 273B, NO PEN ALTY SHALL BE IMPOSABLE U/S. 271C WHERE REASONABLE CAUSE IS ESTAB LISHED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY OBLIGATION. IN RESPECT OF EQUIPMENT HIRE CHARGES PAID TO DOCTORS, ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS ON SUCH PAYMENT FOR F.Y. 2004-05 AND F.Y. 2005-06 SINCE THE DEFINITION OF RENT AS CONTAINED IN EXPLANATION (I) TO SECTION 194-I DI D NOT INCLUDE RENT FOR THE USE OF MACHINERY, PLANT OR EQUIPMENT WITHIN ITS PURVIEW. WITH EFFECT FROM 13-07-2006, THE DEFINITION OF RENT WAS AMENDED TO INCLUDE RENT FOR ITA NO. 8751/MUM/2010 & ITA NO. 7147/MUM/2011 3 THE USE OF MACHINERY, PLANT OR EQUIPMENT. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE BEING UNAWARE OF THE SAID AMENDMENT, CONTINUED NOT DEDUCT ING TAX ON SUCH PAYMENTS TILL AUGUST, 2007. SUBSEQUENTLY, WHEN THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW OF THE AMENDMENT IN THE DEFINITION OF RENT, IT STARTED DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE ON EQUIPMENT HIRE CHARGES FROM THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 2007 ONWARDS. YOUR GOODSELVES WILL THUS APPRECIATE THAT IT WAS NOT AN INTENTIONAL NON-COMPLIANCE OF TDS PROVISIONS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HOSPITAL FAILED TO DEDUCT TA X AT SOURCE ON EQUIPMENT HIRE CHARGES AS IT WAS GENUINELY UNDER TH E IMPRESSION THAT IT WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS AND THERE WAS NO MALAF IDE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, NO PENALTY U/S 271C SHALL BE LEVI ED ON THE ASSESSEE HOSPITAL. HOWEVER, THE A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES SUB MISSION AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMMITTED DEFAULT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271-C OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 10,79,400/- AND ACCORDINGLY IMPOSED THE PENALTY OF RS. 10,79,400/- VIDE ORDER D TD. 29-3-2010 PASSED U/S 271-C OF THE ACT. 3. THE A.O. FOR THE SAME REASON HAS IMPOSED PENALTY U/S 271-C OF THE ACT RS. 3,35,085/- FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09 VIDE OR DER DTD. 29-3-2010 PASSED U/S 271-C OF THE ACT. 4. ON APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 THE LD. CIT(A) WH ILE RELYING ON THE DECISION IN CIT VS. ELI LILLY AND CO. (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (2009) 312 ITR 225 (SC) AND CIT VS. SCHELL INTERNATIONAL (2005) 278 IT R 630 (BOM) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING REASONABLE CAUSE NOT TO DED UCT TAX ON THE PAYMENT AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE AMENDM ENT AND ON BECOMING AWARE, IT HAS IMMEDIATELY STARTED TO COMPL Y THE SAME AND ITA NO. 8751/MUM/2010 & ITA NO. 7147/MUM/2011 4 HENCE THE ASSESSEES CASE IS COVERED UNDER THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 273- B AND ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY TH E A.O. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE SAME REASON AND FOLLOWING ON THE APPELLATE ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 HAS ALSO DELETED THE PEN ALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O. FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) T HE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. THE GROUNDS TAKEN FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 READ AS U NDER:- 1. (I) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A REASONABLE CAUSE NOT TO DEDUCT T DS WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS BROUGHT OUT BY THE A.O. (II) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN ACCEPTING ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT IT WAS NOT AWARE OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE DEFINITION OF RENT THOUGH THERE IS NOTHING ON RECOR D TO PROVE THIS CONTENTION. (III) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING THE ACCEPTABILITY OF THE PHRASE THAT I GNORANCE OF LAW IS NOT AN EXCUSE. (IV) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN RELYING ON DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. SCHELL INTERNATIONAL 278 ITR 630 THOUGH, THE RATIO OF THIS DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THA T IT DID NOT KNOW THE LAW. 8. THE GROUNDS TAKEN FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09 READ AS U NDER:- (I) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A REASONABLE CAUSE NOT TO DEDUCT T DS WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE AS BROUGHT OUT BY THE A.O. ITA NO. 8751/MUM/2010 & ITA NO. 7147/MUM/2011 5 (II) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW I N ACCEPTING ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT IT WAS NOT AWARE OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE DEFINITION OF RENT THOUGH THERE I S NOTHING ON RECORD TO PROVE THIS CONTENTION. (III) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING THE ACCEPTABILITY OF THE PHRASE THAT I GNORANCE OF LAW IS NOT AN EXCUSE. (IV) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW I N RELYING ON DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. SCHELL INTERNATIONAL 278 ITR 630 THOUGH, THE RA TIO OF THIS DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE ASSESSEE HA S FAILED TO PROVE THAT IT DID NOT KNOW THE LAW. 9. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. D.R. WHILE RELYIN G ON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. SUBMITS THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION IN ALL IN DIA J.D. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTI ONS) (2011) 198 TAXMAN 443 (DELHI) : (2011) 338 ITR 218 (DELHI), TH E LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CANCELLING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IMPOSING THE PENALTY FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS BE RESTORED. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE WHILE RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITS THAT THE SPE CIALIST DOCTORS AT TIMES PROVIDED FACILITIES OF HIGHLY SOPHISTICATED MEDICAL EQUIPMENTS TO THE PATIENTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE CHA RGES. THE ASSESSEE COLLECTED THE CHARGES FROM THE PATIENTS AND HAS PAI D THE SAME AMOUNT TO THE DOCTORS, THEREFORE, THE PAYMENT MADE TO DOCTORS IS IN THE NATURE OF REIMBURSEMENT NOT SUBJECTED TO TDS. SHE FURTHER SU BMITS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT THE DOCTORS HAVE ITA NO. 8751/MUM/2010 & ITA NO. 7147/MUM/2011 6 PAID DUE TAXES ON THE SAID RECEIPTS HAS ALLOWED REL IEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER P ASSED U/S 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE ACT. SHE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO T LIABLE TO DEDUCT THE TDS, THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O. AND, HENCE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BE UPHELD. 11. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FI ND THAT THE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE INASMUCH AS IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUT E THAT BEFORE THE A.O. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE BONAF IDE BELIEF THAT IN RESPECT OF EQUIPMENT HIRE CHARGES PAID TO DOCTORS, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS AS THE PAYMENT TO DOCTORS WAS IN THE NATURE OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. AND HE HAS IMPOSED THE PEN ALTY EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF TDS NOT DEDUCTED OR PAID TO THE GOVERNMEN T. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HA VING REASONABLE CAUSE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO MALAFIDE INTENTION NO T TO DEDUCT TDS, DELETED THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O. 12. IN ALL INDIA J.D. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (SUPRA) I T HAS BEEN HELD (HEADNOTE AT PAGE 218 OF 338 ITR) : ITA NO. 8751/MUM/2010 & ITA NO. 7147/MUM/2011 7 HELD, DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, THAT THE APPLI CATION WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. THE COURT IN ITS WRIT JURISDICTION CANN OT RE-EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BEFORE THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL (EXE MPTION). THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL (EXEMPTION) HAD REACHED THE FACTUA L FINDING AFTER APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCE AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. THE PETITIONER-SOCIETY WAS GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD BEFORE THE PASSING OF THE ORDER. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRAV ENTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OR VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JU STICE OR GROSS UNREASONABLENESS OR ARBITRARINESS, THE COURT WOULD NEITHER INTERFERE NOR SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN VIEWS. THE REJECTION OF THE APPL ICATION WAS JUSTIFIED. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE BEFORE US IT IS NOT THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS ANY CONTRAVENTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS O R VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE OR GROSS UNREASONABLE NESS OR ARBITRARINESS, THEREFORE, THE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE LD. D.R. I S DISTINGUISHABLE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 13. IN ELI LILLY AND CO. (INDIA) P. LTD. (SUPRA) IT HAS BEEN HELD (HEADNOTE) : HELD, (I) THAT THE PAYMENT OF HOME SALARY ABROAD B Y THE FOREIGN COMPANY TO THE EXPATRIATES HAD A CONNECTION OR NEXU S WITH THEIR RENDITION OF SERVICES IN INDIA, AND, THEREFORE, SUC H PAYMENT CONSTITUTED INCOME WHICH WAS DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE TO THE R ECIPIENT IN INDIA AS SALARY EARNED IN INDIA IN TERMS OF SECTION 9(1)(II ) OF THE ACT. A. H. WADIA V. CIT [1949] 17 ITR 63 (FC) APPLIED. (II) THAT, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER AN OBL IGATION TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 192(1) FROM THE SALARY. (III) THAT, SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER A GENUINE AND BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT IT WAS NOT UNDER ANY OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE HOME SALARY PAID BY THE FOREIGN COMPANY, PENALTY UN DER SECTION 271C WAS NOT LEVIABLE AS REASONABLE CAUSE WAS SHOWN FOR NOT DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE. THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) IS MANDA TORY AND THE ABSENCE OF LIABILITY FOR TAX WILL NOT DILUTE THE DEFAULT. T HE LIABILITY OF DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE IS IN THE NATURE OF A VICARIOUS LIABILITY , WHICH PRESUPPOSES ITA NO. 8751/MUM/2010 & ITA NO. 7147/MUM/2011 8 EXISTENCE OF PRIMARY LIABILITY. INTEREST UNDER SECT ION 201(1A) READ WITH SECTION 201(1) CAN ONLY BE LEVIED WHEN A PERSON IS DECLARED AN ASSESSEE- IN-DEFAULT. THE PERIOD OF DEFAULT STARTS FROM THE D ATE OF DEDUCTIBILITY TILL THE DATE OF ACTUAL PAYMENT. THE PAYMENT BY THE CONC ERNED EMPLOYEE CAN BE TREATED AS THE DATE OF ACTUAL PAYMENT. [ACCORDINGLY, IN CASES WHERE TAX HAD NOT BEEN PAID, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS TO RECOVER THE SHORTFALL IN THE PAYMENT OF TAX UNDER SECTION 201(1).] THE LIABILITY TO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271C CAN BE FASTENED ONLY ON THE PERSON WHO DOES NOT HAVE GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON FOR NOT DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE. THE BURDEN, OF COURSE WILL BE ON THA T PERSON TO PROVE SUCH GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON. 14. IN HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. VS. STATE OF ORISSA (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) IT HAS BEEN HELD (HEADNOTE) : AN ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO CARRY OUT A STATUTORY OBLIGATION IS THE RESULT OF A QUASI-CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, AND P ENALTY WILL NOT ORDINARILY BE IMPOSED UNLESS THE PARTY OBLIGED EITH ER ACTED DELIBERATELY IN DEFIANCE OF LAW OR WAS GUILTY OF CONDUCT CONTUMACIO US OR DISHONEST, OR ACTED IN CONSCIOUS DISREGARD OF ITS OBLIGATION. PEN ALTY WILL NOT ALSO BE IMPOSED MERELY BECAUSE IT IS LAWFUL TO DO SO. WHETH ER PENALTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO PERFORM A STATUTORY OBLIGATI ON IS A MATTER OF DISCRETION OF THE AUTHORITY TO BE EXERCISED JUDICIA LLY AND ON A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES. EV EN IF A MINIMUM PENALTY IS PRESCRIBED, THE AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO I MPOSE THE PENALTY WILL BE JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO IMPOSE PENALTY, WHEN TH ERE IS A TECHNICAL OR VENIAL BREACH OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR WHERE THE BREACH FLOWS FROM A BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT THE OFFENDER IS NOT LIABLE TO ACT IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE. 15. IN SCHELL INTERNATIONAL (SUPRA) IT HAS BEEN HEL D (HEADNOTE) : HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE THAT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, HE WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THE STATEMENTS WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE EXPIRY OF TH E RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. AS SOON AS HE GOT THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE, HE S UBMITTED THE STATEMENTS. IN FACT, NO TAX WAS DUE FROM HIM. THE E XPLANATION APPEARED TO BE REASONABLE. THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN QUA SHING THE ORDER OF PENALTY. ITA NO. 8751/MUM/2010 & ITA NO. 7147/MUM/2011 9 16. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE BONAFIDE BELIEF SHOWN BY T HE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE FALSE OR UNTRUE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THAT THE REIMBURSEMENT OF CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT HAVE ANY ELEMEN T OF INCOME, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE DECIS IONS HOLD THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT HE IS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE IN RESPECT OF EQUIPMENT HIRE CHARGES PAID TO DOCTORS AND CONSEQUENTLY WE ARE INC LINED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE PENA LTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09. THE COMMON GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ARE, THEREFORE, REJECTED. 17. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEALS STAND DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 07-11-2012. SD/- (N.K. BILLAIYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 07-11-2012. RK ITA NO. 8751/MUM/2010 & ITA NO. 7147/MUM/2011 10 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- CONCERNED , MUMBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CONCERNED , MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH I, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI