Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Navin Fluroine International Ltd, ... vs Cit 7, Mumbai on 4 April, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH "B", MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.1205/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year- 2009-10)
Navin Fluorine International Ltd. Commission of Income-Tax-7,
2nd Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road,
37/40, Subhash Road, Vile Parle Vs. Mumbai-20.
(East), Mumbai-400057.
PAN: AABCP0464B
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Ms. Arati Vissanji (AR)
Revenue by : Ms. S. Padmaja (CIT DR)
Date of hearing : 30.01.2018
Date of Pronouncement : 04.04.2018
Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act
PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
1. This appeal by assessee under section 253 of Income Tax Act is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-7 Mumbai under section 263 of Income Tax Act dated 24.01.2014 for Assessment Year 2009-10. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal; (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Commissioner of income tax ought to have not held the assessment order passed under section 143(3) dated 29 December 2011 by the assessing officer is erroneous as the same is prejudicial to the interest of revenue and consequently, Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have not passed order dated 24 January 2014 under section 263 of the Act, in view of the same, the order dated 2014 will 2014 passed by Commissioner of income tax under section 263 of the Act should be held as bad in law and hence should be quashed /cancelled.
ITA No. 1205/M/14- Navin Fluorine International Ltd.
2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturer and trading of Chemicals, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2009-10 on 28th September 2009 declaring total income of Rs. 68,55,65,136/-under normal provisions of the Income tax Act and Rs.77,11,89,720/- under section 115JB (book profits) of the Act. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 29th December 2011 determining the total income at Rs. 71,09,93,779/-. The Assessing Officer while passing assessment order besides the disallowance under section 14A, disallowed depreciation on computer software. The Assessing Officer allowed adjustments under the application of section 145A. The assessing officer allowed the said adjustment as discussed in para 8 of the assessment order. Thereafter, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax issued a show-cause notice under section 263 dated 25th October 2013 for revising the assessment order. The ld. Commissioner issued show-cause notice on four issues on his following observations:
(i) That MAT credit of Rs. 19,88,06,245/- has been allowed as there is no MAT credit remaining to be carried forward from the earlier assessment year. This has been done without making any inquiry.
(ii) That fixed assets amounting to Rs. 4220.03 lakhs has been transferred to "impairment of fixed asset account". The book depreciation of Rs. 469.73 lakhs was added back for the purpose of computing the taxable income, and neither the adjustment has been carried out in respect of impairment of its asset under any block of asset nor has the depreciation attributable to the assets classified as impairment of asset been added back nor the receipt of Rs. 5550.47 lakhs for phasing out the production of CFC in the earlier years which has been treated as a capital receipt and credited to the capital 2 ITA No. 1205/M/14- Navin Fluorine International Ltd. account was offered for taxation. The depreciation on the impaired assets, if any, claimed and allowed should have been enquired into before being allowed. This has not been done.
(iii) That deduction of Rs. 1,32,86,625/-on account of adjustment under section 145A of the Act was made to the value of the closing stock in the earlier years and whereas similar claim for immediate preceding assessment year 2008-09 was disallowed by the assessing officer. In accordance with the stand taken in the Assessment Year 2008-09, the claim of deduction of Rs.
1,32,86,625/- should have been examined by the assessing officer, whereas no enquiry in this regard was conducted.
(iv) The assessee is consistently following mercantile system of accounting and charging the expenditure of capital nature on scientific research related to the assessee's business was transferred to the work in progress account till the assets was ready to put to use, and once the asset is ready to put to be use, the said asset is transferred to the fixed asset account. During the current assessment year the assessee claimed and to have allowed deduction on capital expenditure amounting to Rs.25819434/-which is pending for completion and was transferred to the fixed asset account. This has been done without making any enquiry prime facie warranted on facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The ld. Commissioner of Income-tax on the basis of his observation on four issues was of the view that the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, a show-cause notice under section 263 dated 25th October 2014 was issued to the assessee. The assessee filed its detail reply vide written submission dated 3rd January 2014 and on 7th January 2014. In the reply the assessee with regard to the issue of MAT credit contended that under section 115JAA of Rs. 19,88,06,245/- has been allowed though there is no MAT credit to be carried forward from the earlier Assessment Year. The assessee further contended that in the assessment order wherein it is mentioned "MAT credit carried forward of Rs. 19,88,06,245/-". There is a typographical mistake. Rs. 19,88,06,245/- 3 ITA No. 1205/M/14- Navin Fluorine International Ltd. represent the amount of tax on total income reducing therefore the MAT credit of Rs. 1,44,91,888/- available for set off as per assessment order for AY 2008-09. Thus, the assessee conceded the mistake in the assessment order. The assessee contended that assessing officer be directed to rectify the mistake.
4. For second issue related with depreciation, the assessee contended that the retired assets were used during the current Financial Year for the purpose of business and that said assets were reallocated and reinstalled in another unit at Dewas. The assessee further contended that the assessee-company would produce the books of account, excise record, inventory records and all other relevant record for Dewas undertaking to establish that during the year ended on 31.03.2009, Dewas unit was functional/operational.
5. For third issue related with deduction on account of adjustment under section 145A, the assessee contended that they have claimed deduction of Rs. 1,32,86,685/- on account of adjustment made to the value of closing stock in earlier years and has been allowed such deduction. It was contended that the assessing officer after examining the facts of the case, including the manner of adjustment carried out in two successive previous years carried out the adjustment of Rs. 1,32,86,685/- under section 145A. The adjustment is proper and in accordance with law and as per the value of opening stock which has to be taken at a value 4 ITA No. 1205/M/14- Navin Fluorine International Ltd. assigned to it. The order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The AO was fully aware that no such adjustment for the preceding AY i.e. 2008-09 was made. The assessee also pleaded the rule of consistency.
6. For fourth issue related with the capital expenditure for asset acquired but not put to use during the year ended on 31.03.2009, the assessee contended that they are in-house research and development unit at Bhestan, Surat which is approved by Government of India, Ministry of Science & Technology, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi. The assessee further contended that as per language of section 35 of the Act, the statute nowhere provides for the purpose of allowability of capital expenditure, the assessee is entitled even if the asset in question is not actually used during the year. The only requirement is that the expenditure has to be incurred and that the utilization or putting the asset for use has no relevance.
7. After considering the reply of assessee the ld Commissioner accepted the contention of assessee with regard to first issue related with MAT credit and directed the assessing officer to verify the facts and pass appropriate order under section 154 of the Act. However, the contentions of assessee with regard to remaining three issues were not accepted. For second issue the ld. Commissioner was of the view that claim of depreciation is allowable only when asset are installed and utilized for the purpose of 5 ITA No. 1205/M/14- Navin Fluorine International Ltd. business. The assessing officer failed to examine the said issue and erroneously allowed to the assessee. The assessee had admitted that they are ready to produce the books of account, excise record to substantiate the claim that the asset were installed and utilized at Dewas. The assessing officer was directed to re-examine the issue afresh and pass the order accordingly. For third issue regarding adjustment under section 145A, the ld. Commissioner took the view that no enquiry was conducted by the AO, thus, the allowance of claim caused prejudice to the interest of Revenue and directed the assessing officer to examine the issue afresh as per law. For fourth issue related with capital expenditure in respect of asset acquired but not put to use. The ld. Commissioner took his view that requisite enquiries were not carried out by AO as a result of which the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Thus, aggrieved by the order of ld. Commissioner, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.
8. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee and ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue and perused the material available on record. The ld. AR of the assessee argued that the revision is based on audit objections. The revision based on Audit objection and as the ld. Commissioner was of different view is not enough to say that the order passed by Assessing Officer is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The ld. Commissioner can exercise 6 ITA No. 1205/M/14- Navin Fluorine International Ltd. his jurisdiction on its satisfaction that the exercise of jurisdiction is existed. In support of his submission, the ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Sohana Woolen Mills [2008] 296 ITR 238(P&H). Regarding the issue related with impaired asset/fixed asset, the ld. AR submits that assessing officer made enquiries during the assessment. The assessing officer asked for note on depreciation. The assessee filed its reply dated 20.12.2011. The assessee along with reply furnished the details of impaired asset, copy of which is filed at page no. 1 to 12 of Paper Book. The ld. CIT was aware that the impaired asset are forming part of asset and Dewas unit was having manufacturing activities. The assessing officer has taken a possible view while passing the assessment order. For adjustment under section 145A, the ld. AR submits that all facts were examined by assessing officer the assessee explained the facts before during the assessment proceeding. The assessee vide its letter dated 15.11.2011, 23.11.2011 and 20.12.2011 explained the facts related with the adjustment under section 145A. The assessing officer considered the contention of assessee and allowed the relief to the assessee in the assessment order dated 29.12.2011. The view of the ld. Commissioner that order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue is wrong. There is no error in the order of assessing officer . Moreover, the ld. Commissioner instead of passing appropriate order has restored the same to the file of assessing officer. Regarding 7 ITA No. 1205/M/14- Navin Fluorine International Ltd. deduction under section 35, the ld. AR submits that the assessee vide its letter dated 23.11.2011 furnished all details before the AO, copy of which is at page no. 60 to 65 of Paper Book. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that the question of asset put to use is not relevant under section
35. The AO made enquiry and all queries raised by AO was replied. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Company Ltd Vs CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT Vs Max India Ltd [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC), Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Construction Company (374 ITR 103) and decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat Aluminum Extrusion Pvt. Ltd. (263 ITR 453), Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Nirav Modi [2017] 390 ITR 292 (Bom), CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd [1993] 203 ITR 108, MOIL Ltd Vs CIT [2017] 396 ITR 244 (Bom), CIT Vs Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd [2015]372 ITR 303 (Bom), Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ITO Vs DG Housing Projects Ltd [2012] 343 ITR 329( Delhi), DIT Vs Jyoti Foundation [2013]357 ITR 388(Delhi)
9. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of ld. CIT. The ld. DR for the Revenue further submits that as per Explanation 2 of section 263, the order passed by AO is deemed to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, if the order is passed without making enquiries and verification which should have been made, or 8 ITA No. 1205/M/14- Navin Fluorine International Ltd. allowed any relief without enquiry into the claim. All the issues examined and revised by ld. CIT fulfilled the twin condition prescribed under section 263. The ld. CIT has given clear finding while revising the order. The AO has not applied his mind while granting adjustment under section 145A. No specific order is made by assessing officer with regard to impaired asset as is no discussion in the assessment order about the impaired asset. Further, there is no reference regarding fourth issue related with scientific research in the entire assessment order. The order passed by AO is clearly erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The ld. DR for the Revenue in support of her submissions relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs Ashok Logani in ITA No.553, 587 of 2010, 487 & 488 of 2011 dated 11.05.2011. In the rejoinder submissions the ld. AR for the assessee submits that in compliance of the directions of the ld. CIT the assessing officer passed the order without giving any opportunity to the assessee. The assessing officer was required to give opportunity before giving effect to the order of ld. Commissioner.
10.We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of the assessing officer passed under section 143(3) dated 291.12.2011 and the order of ld. Commissioner dated 24.01.2014 under section 263, impugned before us. The ld. Commissioner vide his show cause notice dated 25.10.2013, proposed to revise the 9 ITA No. 1205/M/14- Navin Fluorine International Ltd. assessment order on four issues, which consist of allowance of MAT credit, depreciation on impaired fixed asset, deduction on account of adjustment under section 145A and capital expenditure on scientific research. After considering the reply of the assessee the assessing officer treated the allowance of MAT credit as rectifiable mistake and accordingly directed the assessing officer to rectify the same. However, on the issues related with depreciation on impaired fixed asset, deduction on account of adjustment under section 145A and capital expenditure on scientific research the ld. CIT directed the assessing officer to pass order afresh after making the proper inquiries/ verification. The ld. AR for the assessee has not contested the issue related with MAT credit, while making submissions.
11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co Ltd (supra) has laid down the following principal;
" A bare reading of section 263 of the Act 1961, makes it clear that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the CIT suo moto under it, is that the order of ITO is erroneous, so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The CIT has to be satisfied twin conditions, namely (1), the order of AO sought to be revised is erroneous and (2) it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. If one of them is absent- if the order of ITO is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the revenue - recourse cannot be had to section 263 (1 ) of the Act. The provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the AO, it is only when an order is erroneous that the section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of fact or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order 10 ITA No. 1205/M/14- Navin Fluorine International Ltd. being erroneous. In the same category falls orders passed without applying the principle of natural Justice or without application of mind. The 'phrase prejudicial to the interest of revenue' is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act. Understood it is ordinary meaning it is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. The scheme of the act is to levy and collect tax in accordance with the provision of the act and this task is entrusted to the revenue. If due to an erroneous order of the ITO, the revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The phrase prejudicial to the interest of revenue has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the AO. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of AO, cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of revenue, for example, when an ITO, adopted one of the course permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the ITO has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Unless the view taken by ITO is unsustainable in law."
Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs Gabrial India Ltd 203 ITR 108 (Bom), held that "the power of suo moto revision under subsection (1) of section 263 of the Act is in the nature of supervisory direction and can be exercised only if the circumstances specified therein exist. Two circumstances must exist to enable the CIT to exercise the power of revision under this sub section viz ( 1) the order should be erroneous and ( 2) by virtue of the order being erroneous prejudice must have been caused to the interest of the revenue. And order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If ITO. Act in accordance with law. Make certain assessment; the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the CIT simply because according to him, the order should have been written more celebratory. This section does not visualise a case of substitution of the judgement of the CIT for that of the ITO, who passed the order, unless the decision is held to be erroneous. This is may be visualised where the ITO while making the assessment examines the accounts, makes enquiries, applied his mind to the 11 ITA No. 1205/M/14- Navin Fluorine International Ltd. facts and circumstances of the case and determine the income either by accepting the accounts for by making some estimate himself. The CIT on perusal of records, may be of opinion that the estimate made by the officer concerned was on the lower side and left to the CIT, he would have estimated the income at a higher figure than one determine by the ITO. That would not vest the CIT with power to re-examine the accounts and determine the income himself at the higher figure. This is because ITO has exercised the quasi-judicial power vested in him in accordance with law and arrived at a conclusion and such a conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous, simply because the CIT does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. It may be said in such a case that in the opinion of the CIT the order in question is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. But that by itself would not be enough to vest the CIT with the power to suo moto revision because the 1st requirement, namely that the order is erroneous, is absent. Similarly, if an order is erroneous but not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, then the power of suo moto revision cannot be exercised. And every erroneous order cannot be subject matter of revision because the 2nd requirement must be fulfilled. There must be some prima facie material on record to show that tax which was lawfully eligible has not been imposed or that by the application of the relevant statue, on an incorrect or incomplete interpretation, a lesser tax than what was just has been imposed. When exercise of statutory power is dependent upon the existence of certain objective facts, the authority before exercising such power must have material on record to satisfy in that regard. If the action of the authorities challenged before the court, it would be open to the courts to examine whether relevant objective factors were label from the records called for and examined by such authority".
Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Versus Anil Kumar Sharma (335 ITR 83 Delhi ) held as under:
" The AO had examined every aspect and applied his mind on all facts before accepting the computation of income submitted by the assessee and passed the assessment order. It was the assessee's contention that a specific reply had been submitted by the assessee with regard to the purchase of land at village Tugalkabad and the copy of the award passed 12 ITA No. 1205/M/14- Navin Fluorine International Ltd. by Hon'ble High Court in respect of this land was also submitted to the AO. The Tribunal after examining the fact of the case observed that although it is not discernible from the assessment order whether the assessing officer had applied his mind or not, it was the prerogative of the AO to draft his order, and if he failed to record certain finding the assessee could not be penalised therefore. The Tribunal further observed that what has to be ascertained is, whether assessing officer had investigated the issue and applied his mind to the whole record. In this behalf it is noted that AO had asked the assessee to submit the purchase date in respect of purchase of land at village Tugalkabad was and that assessee in response thereto had supplied requisite details and submitted a copy of high court decision in relation to the award of compensation, etc. The Tribunal therefore came to the conclusion that the complete detail filed before the AO and he applied his mind to the relevant material and facts, although such application of mind is not discernible from the assessment order. The tribunal held that the Commissioner in proceedings under section 263 also had all these details and materials available before it, but had not able to point out defects conclusively in the said material, for arriving at a conclusion that particular income had escaped assessment on account of non-application of mind by the assessing officer. The Tribunal, therefore, allowed the appeal of the assessee and quashed the order of the Commissioner passed under section 263of the Act."
12. Further Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of DG Housing Projects Ltd (supra) held that the order is erroneous is a condition which must be satisfied for exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of Income-tax Act. The matter cannot be remitted back for fresh decision to the assessing officer to conduct further inquires without a finding that order is erroneous. The commissioner must after recording reasons hold that order is erroneous. The Commissioner cannot direct reconsideration only when the order is erroneous. An order of remit cannot be passed by the commissioner to ask the assessing officer to decide whether the order was erroneous, which is not permissible. In Jyoti Foundation (supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court while distinguishing the order passed after 13 ITA No. 1205/M/14- Navin Fluorine International Ltd. proper inquiry and without inquiry held that the orders which are passed without inquiry or investigation are treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, but orders which are passed after inquiry or investigation on the issues are not per se or normally treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Because the revisionary authority feels and opines that further inquiry or investigation was required or deeper or further scrutiny should be undertaken, the Commissioner must record a finding that the order made is erroneous. This can happen if an inquiry and verification is conducted by Commissioner and he is able to establish and show the error or mistake made by assessing officer, making the order unsustainable in law. An order of remit cannot be passed by ld. Commissioner to ask the assessing officer to decide if the order is erroneous.
13.Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Ashok Ligani (supra), relied by ld. DR for the revenue, has held:
"No doubt, the order-sheet showed that the Assessing Officer had asked the assessee to explain cash found. However, whether the Assessing Officer had, in fact, gone into the issue and accepted the claim of the assessee or not was not discernible from the assessment order. No doubt, the Assessing Officer is not supposed to write the orders in detail in the same manner as a judicial officer is supposed to write the judgments. At the same time, it could not be ignored that in the instant case huge cash ( xxxx) was found at the time of search and on that date, the assessee had surrendered a sum (xxxx) offered the same for tax. However in his income-tax return, the assessee had offered a sum of (xxx) only against the surrendered amount of 14 ITA No. 1205/M/14- Navin Fluorine International Ltd. (xxxx) lakhs at the time of search. In such a scenario, there should have been at least a brief discussion recording a satisfaction on the explanation offered by the assessee
14.In view of the above legal position, now, we are shall examine and peruse the assessment order. The perusal of assessment order reveals that during the assessment proceedings the assessing officer examined and investigated the adjustment under section 145A. The assessee submitted its reply vide reply dated 15.11.2011, 23.11.2011 & 21.12.2011 (copies of which is placed on record before us). After considering the replies of the assessee the assessing officer prepared the working of adjustment under section 145A vide Annexure "2" of the assessment order. In our view the assessing officer called the necessary details and after examining it prepared the working of adjustment under section 145A. The assessing officer prepared the detailed working vide Annexure "2" of the assessment order. The mare facts that in the view of ld. CIT, the assessing officer has not examined the issue are not correct. The ld. CIT has not given any clear finding as to which enquiry was not carried by assessing officer. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) held that if the assessing officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the order should have been written more elaborately. This section does not visualize a case of substitution of the judgment of 15 ITA No. 1205/M/14- Navin Fluorine International Ltd. the Commissioner of Income Tax for that of the ITO, who passed the order, unless the decision is held to be erroneous. Cases may be visualized where the ITO while making an assessment examines the accounts, makes enquiries, applies his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and determines the income either by accepting the accounts or by making some estimate himself. The Commissioner, on perusal of the records, may be of the opinion that the estimate made by the officer concerned was on the lower side and left to the Commissioner he would have estimated the income at a figure higher than the one determined by the ITO. That would not vest the Commissioner with power to re-examine the accounts and determine the income himself at a higher figure. We have noted that the ld. Commissioner has not given any finding that the adjustment made by assessing officer is erroneous (para 6.3 of order). Thus, in our view the twin condition order prescribed under section 263 are not satisfied. The assessing officer has taken a reasonable and possible view. Even, otherwise in our view the order of assessing officer is not erroneous on the issue related with adjustment under section 145A. The order of ld. Commissioner is set aside to that extent.
15. So far as other remaining two issues, related with depreciation on impaired fixed asset and capital expenditure on scientific research are concerned, we have note that the assessing officer has not discussed nor 16 ITA No. 1205/M/14- Navin Fluorine International Ltd. there is any reference in the assessment order if the assessing officer made any investigation. The assessing officer has silently allowed the relief to the assessee. No doubt that the assessee has shown us, that they furnished the details of expenditure incurred on research and development during the assessment proceedings and copies of which are placed on record (vide page 35 to 38 & 60 to 65 of PB). However, there is no discussion of the issue in the assessment order. In our view the twin condition as provided under section 263 are available for revising the order on the issues related to depreciation on impaired fixed asset and capital expenditure on scientific research. Hence, the order of ld. Commissioner is upheld qua the issues related to depreciation on impaired fixed asset and capital expenditure on scientific research. In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. The assessing officer is directed to pass the order accordingly. Needless to order before passing the order the assessing officer shall grant sufficient opportunity before passing the order in accidence with law.
Order pronounced in the open court on 4th day of March 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
(B.R. BASKARAN) (PAWAN SINGH)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai; Dated 04/04/2018
S.K.PS
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT(A), Mumbai.
4. CIT
17
ITA No. 1205/M/14- Navin Fluorine International Ltd.
5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. Guard file.
स या पत त //True Copy/
BY ORDER,
(Asstt.Registrar)
ITAT, Mumbai
18