BRAHMADANDA HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BELAGAVI vs. DCIT TDS CIRCLE PANAJI GOA, PANAJI GOA

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANANI BENCH ‘DB’ PANAJI BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 224/PAN/2025 (िनधा�रणवष�/AssessmentYear:2016-2017) BRAHMADANDA HEALTHCARE DCIT TDS CIRCLE PANAJI GOA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED BAGMANE BUILDING, PLOT NO. R S NO. 73/7, GANDHI NAGAR, 13-A3, EDC COMPLEX, PATTO, Vs. OPP FORT LAKE, BELAGAVI- PANAJI, GOA, 403001 590016, KARNATAKA PANAJI-403001, GOA अपीलाथ�Appellant ��यथ� Respondent Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AAECB1842J अपीलाथ��ारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Rahul K Hakani, Adv & Shri Sourabh Bhat, CA ��यथ��ारा/Respondentrepresented by: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR सुनवाईक�तारीख/Date of conclusion of hearing: 19-Aug-2026 घोषणाक�तारीख/Date of pronouncement: 13.10.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal is filed by the Assesseeagainst the order of Ld. CIT(A)/ National Faceless Appeal CentreDelhi dated 04th August, 2025 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts relating to the assessee as emanating from the record are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company and is a Hospital having facility of 118 beds in Belgaum District operational since 2010. The hospital has round 400 employees and 35 consultant doctors. Survey u/s. 133A(2A) was conducted at the hospital on 07.03.2019, during which due verification of books of account was carried out. Statement of Dr. Praveen G. Vagarali, Director of Finance of the hospital was recorded u/s 131 of the. The assessee company is a hospital which has 15 directors, all of whom are

ITA 224/PAN/2025 BRAHMADANDA HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED executive directors. For the running of the hospital, all directors occupy different portfolios by rotation, which changes every year. Assessee had made payment to these doctors as professional fee and deducted TDS u/s. 194J of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer in his order u/s.201(1)/201(1A) of the Act treated the assessee as the alleging that wrong TDS section was applied. He held that assessee ought to have deducted TDS u/s.192 and not u/s.194J of the Act. He accordingly calculated the demand of Rs.1,88,25,680/-. 3. Aggrieved assessee went in appeal before ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) after elaborately discussing the observations made by the Assessing Officer and certain judicial precedents has finally countenanced the view point of the Assessing Officer. Now the assessee being dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by ld.CIT(A) has approached this Tribunal contending that ld.CIT(A) erred in arriving at the finding that payments made to the consultant doctors attracts TDS provisions as per section 192 of the Act and not section 194J adopted by the assessee. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us and the decisions relied on by the ld. Counsel for the assessee as well as ld.CIT(A). The only issue for our consideration is whether the assessee is liable to deduct TDS u/s.194J or u/s.192 of the Act on the payments made to the Doctors as held by the Revenue authorities. It is the contention of the assessee that all the doctors are professionals and have already shown their income in their respective Income Tax Returns and paid the due taxes, if any. Accordingly, there is no loss to the revenue. In support of its contention, ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on catena of decisions. It is also the alternate contention of the assessee that the consultant doctors have shown their respective income and discharged tax liability and therefore the assessee cannot be held as ‘the assessee in default’.

ITA 224/PAN/2025 BRAHMADANDA HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED 5. We find merit in the alternate contention of the assessee in light of the judicial precedents relied on by the ld. Counsel of the assessee. In this regard, we rely on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (2007) 163 Taxman 355 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Court observed as under : “7. The Tribunal upon rehearing the appeal held that though the appellant-assessee was rightly held to be an 'assessee-in-default, there could be no recovery of the tax alleged to be in default once again from the appellant considering that Pradeep Oil Corporation had already paid taxes on the amount received from the appellant. It is required to note that the department conceded before the Tribunal that the recovery could not once again be made from the tax deductor where the payee included the income on which tax was alleged to have been short deducted in its taxable income and paid taxes thereon. There is no dispute whatsoever that Pradeep Oil Corporation had already paid the taxes due on its income received from the appellant and had received refund from the tax department. The Tribunal came to the right conclusion that the tax once again could not be recovered from the appellant (deductor-assessee) since the tax has already been paid by the recipient of income.” 6. In light of the aforesaid judicial precedent, we are inclined to set aside the issue matter back to the file of Assessing Officer with direction to verify the contention of the assessee that all the doctors have paid their respective taxes in their return of income & upon verification of this fact cancel the order passed u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act, or otherwise, if the same is not in conformity with the judicial precedents. Assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer in this regard & to produce relevant documents and evidence in support of its contentions without taking any adjournment unless otherwise required. Needless to say that the AO shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Impugned order is set aside and grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA 224/PAN/2025 BRAHMADANDA HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th October, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune; �दनांक Dated : 13th October, 2026 Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Kumar Sharma Date: 2026.10.14 Sharma 12:18:00 +05'30' Copy to: BRAHMADANDA HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, R S NO. 73/7, GANDHI NAGAR, OPP FORT 1 LAKE, BELAGAVI-590016, KARNATAKA DCIT TDS CIRCLE PANAJI GOA, BAGMANE BUILDING, PLOT NO. 13-A3, EDC 2 COMPLEX, PATTO, PANAJI, GOA, 403001, PANAJI-403001, GOA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, PANAJIBENCH 5 GUARD FILE आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरणITAT, Pune.