Referral fees and four-year reopening limits: hospital commission was disallowed, but reassessment based on old material failed.

Referral commission or similar payments made by a hospital to doctors for patient referrals were treated as expenditure incurred in a purpose prohibited by law, because the medical ethics regulations barred physicians from receiving such consideration and the CBDT circular clarified that violations of those regulations are inadmissible under section 37(1); the deduction was therefore disallowed. Reassessment notices issued after four years from the end of the assessment year were held invalid where the recorded reasons did not allege failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts and the reopening relied on the same material already examined in the original assessment; this was treated as a mere change of opinion, so the notices and consequential proceedings were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether referral commission or similar payments made by a hospital to doctors for referring patients are allowable as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or are hit by the Explanation as expenditure incurred for a purpose prohibited by law; (ii) Whether notices issued under sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year were valid when the recorded reasons disclosed no failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts and the reassessment was founded on the same material already examined in the original assessment.

Issue (i): Whether referral commission or similar payments made by a hospital to doctors for referring patients are allowable as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or are hit by the Explanation as expenditure incurred for a purpose prohibited by law.

Analysis: The amended medical ethics regulations prohibited a physician from receiving commission, bonus, gift or other consideration for referring patients, and the CBDT circular clarified that expenditure incurred in violation of those regulations would be inadmissible under section 37(1). The later Supreme Court ruling on freebies to doctors treated the circular as clarificatory and effective from the date the prohibition came into force. On that footing, payment of referral fees by the hospital was participation in a proscribed arrangement and could not be treated as ordinary deductible business expenditure.

Conclusion: The claim for deduction was not allowable and the issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether notices issued under sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year were valid when the recorded reasons disclosed no failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts and the reassessment was founded on the same material already examined in the original assessment.

Analysis: Reopening beyond four years required a recorded basis showing failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The reasons recorded did not allege such failure, and the material relied upon for reopening had already been available and considered in the original assessment under section 143(3). A reassessment initiated on the same material amounted to a mere change of opinion and did not satisfy the jurisdictional precondition for reopening after four years.

Conclusion: The reopening was invalid and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded to the extent that the reassessment notices and all consequential proceedings were quashed, although the disallowability issue under section 37(1) was answered against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Expenditure incurred in participating in a transaction prohibited by law is not deductible under section 37(1), and a reassessment beyond four years cannot be sustained unless the recorded reasons expressly show the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts; reopening on the same material is a mere change of opinion.

---