On the basis of documents seized in the course of a survey at a hospital, and consequent inferences, the authorities came to the conclusion that  an employer-employee relationship was established between the assessees, doctors, and the hospital, the assessees were to be construed as employees and not full time or visiting consultants, and  the income returned by them had to be assessed under the head “Salary” and not “professional income. Show-cause notices were issued to the assessees on various dates under clause (b) of section 148A. The assessees filed replies objecting to the proposal to treat the income returned under the head “Salary” and not “professional income” and submitting that none of the documents found were incriminating or supported the issuance of the notices. An order was passed under section 148(d) of the Act rejecting the arguments. On a writ petition the Court held that in all the cases the entity searched was the KMC hospital. The Assessing Officer had come to the conclusion that the hospital exercised total control over the doctors in regard to their timings of work, holidays, call duties based on the exigencies of work, termination, entitlement to private practice, increments and other service rules. However the agreements between the hospital and the assessees revealed the following terms: (i) The doctors were referred to as consultants and fell within the category of visiting consultants or full time consultants, as against part-time and special category consultants who also attended the hospital. (ii) The remuneration paid was of a fixed amount along with a variable component depending on the number of patients treated, and was termed “salary”. (iii) The consultants were not entitled to any statutory service benefits such as provident fund, gratuity, bonus, medical reimbursement, insurance or leave encashment. (iv) Working hours were stipulated as 8 a. m. to 5 p. m. and the consultants were expected to be available on call in the night. (v) They were permitted a month’s vacation and leave on a case-to-case basis and depending on need. (vi) Private practice was permitted in the case of both categories, upon the satisfaction of certain conditions, such as service of two years in the hospital and other conditions. (vii) The hospital did not exercise any control, intervention or direction over the exercise of professional duties by the assessees. (viii) The assessees were wholly responsible for professional indemnity insurance and the hospital did not indemnify the doctors from any manner of claims. The intention of the parties appeared to engage in a relationship as equals. The hospital, on the one hand, and the professional, on the other, engaged in a relationship where the former provided the administrative infrastructure and facilities and the latter, the professional skill and expertise to result in a mutual rewarding result. The fact that the remuneration paid was variable, and the doctors were not entitled to any statutory benefits also pointed to the absence of an employer-employee relationship. The mere presence of rules and regulations did not lead to a conclusion of a contract of service. Rules and regulations are necessary to ensure that the workplace functions in a streamlined and disciplined fashion. The mere existence of an agreement that indicated some measure of regulation of the service of the doctors, could not lead to a conclusion that they were salaried employees. The fact that the doctors held full responsibility for their medical decisions and actions and the hospital bore no responsibility in this regard was also of paramount importance, relevant to determine the nature of the relationship as being one of equals, rather than one of master-servant. The order contained clear, categoric and conclusive findings that were adverse to the assessees. There were no disputed facts at play and rather, it was only the interpretation of admitted facts and conclusions arrived at by the officer, that were challenged. The “information” in the possession of the Revenue did not, in the light of the settled legal position lead to the conclusion that there had been escapement of tax. The order under section 148A was not valid. (AY. 2018-19)