NAVIN FLUROINE INTERNATIONAL LTD, MUMBAI V. CIT 7, MUMBAI

ITA 1205/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7539 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S PADMAJA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Audit objection; Principle of natural justice; Rule of consistency; Capital receipt; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 115JB; 263; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH B, MU MBAI 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. 2 ND FLOOR, SUNTECK CENTRE, 37/40, SUBHASH ROAD, VILE PARLE (EAST), MUMBAI-400057. PAN: AABCP0464B VS. COMMISSION OF INCOME-TAX- 7, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-20. (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 A ND 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 ASSESS ING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AS THE SAME IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVEN UE 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 INCO ME TAX UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT SHOULD BE HELD AS BAD IN LAW AND HEN CE SHOULD BE QUASHED /CANCELLED . ITA NO. 1205/M/14- NAVIN FLUORINE INTERNATIONAL LT D. 2 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY I S ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURER AND TRADING OF CHEMICALS, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON 28 TH SEPTEMBER 2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 68,55,65,136/-UNDER NORMAL PROV ISIONS 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 29 TH DECEMBER 2011 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 7 1,09,93,779/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER BE SIDES THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A, DISALLOWED DEPRECIA TION 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 25 TH OCTOBER 2013 FOR REVISING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD. COMMISSIONER ISSUED SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ON FO UR ISSUES ON HIS FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: (I) THAT MAT CREDIT OF RS. 19,88,06,245/- HAS BEEN ALLO WED 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 HA S BEEN TRANSFERRED TO IMPAIRMENT OF FIXED ASSET ACCOUNT. THE BOOK DEPRE CIATION OF RS. 469.73 LAKHS WAS ADDED BACK FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING T HE TAXABLE INCOME, AND NEITHER THE ADJUSTMENT HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT IN RESP ECT OF IMPAIRMENT OF ITS ASSET UNDER ANY BLOCK OF ASSET NOR HAS THE DEPRECIA TION 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 CRE DITED TO THE CAPITAL ITA NO. 1205/M/14- NAVIN FLUORINE INTERNATIONAL LT D. 3 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 AD JUSTMENT UNDER SECTION 145A OF THE ACT WAS MADE TO THE VALUE OF THE CLOSIN G STOCK IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND WHEREAS SIMILAR CLAIM FOR IMMEDIATE PRECE DING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STAND TAKEN IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE CLA IM 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 S YSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND CHARGING THE EXPENDITURE OF CAPITAL NATURE ON SCIEN TIFIC RESEARCH RELATED TO THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE WORK IN PROGRESS ACCOUNT TILL THE ASSETS WAS READY TO PUT TO USE, AND ONCE THE AS SET IS READY TO PUT TO BE USE, THE SAID ASSET IS TRANSFERRED TO THE FIXED ASS ET ACCOUNT. DURING THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED AND TO HAVE ALLOWED DEDUCTION ON CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.25819434/-WH ICH IS PENDING FOR COMPLETION AND WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE FIXED ASSET A CCOUNT. THIS HAS BEEN DONE WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY PRIME FACIE WARRANT ED 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 ORD ER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THEREFORE, A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 DA TED 25 TH OCTOBER 2014 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS DETAIL REPLY VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 3 RD JANUARY 2014 AND ON 7 TH 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 T HE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IN THE AS SESSMENT 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/- ITA NO. 1205/M/14- NAVIN FLUORINE INTERNATIONAL LT D. 4 REPRESENT THE AMOUNT OF TAX ON TOTAL INCOME REDUCIN G 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 MIS TAKE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT ASSES SING OFFICER BE DIRECTED TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE. 4. FOR SECOND ISSUE RELATED WITH DEPRECIATION, THE ASS ESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE RETIRED ASSETS WERE USED DURING THE CURRENT FIN ANCIAL YEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND THAT SAID ASSETS WERE REALL OCATED AND REINSTALLED IN ANOTHER UNIT AT DEWAS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONT ENDED 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 O F 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 DE DUCTION. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINI NG THE FACTS OF THE CASE, INCLUDING THE MANNER OF ADJUSTMENT CARRIED OUT IN T WO SUCCESSIVE PREVIOUS YEARS CARRIED OUT THE ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 1, 32,86,685/- UNDER SECTION 145A. THE ADJUSTMENT IS PROPER AND IN ACCOR DANCE WITH LAW AND AS PER THE VALUE OF OPENING STOCK WHICH HAS TO BE T AKEN AT A VALUE ITA NO. 1205/M/14- NAVIN FLUORINE INTERNATIONAL LT D. 5 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 ASSESSE E ALSO PLEADED THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY. 6. FOR FOURTH ISSUE RELATED WITH THE CAPITAL EXPENDITU RE 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 DEVEL OPMENT UNIT AT BHESTAN, SURAT WHICH IS APPROVED BY GOVERNMENT OF I NDIA, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH, NEW DELHI. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT AS P ER LANGUAGE OF SECTION 35 OF THE ACT, THE STATUTE NOWHERE PROVIDES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWABILITY OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, THE ASSESSEE I S ENTITLED EVEN IF THE ASSET IN QUESTION IS NOT ACTUALLY USED DURING THE Y EAR. THE ONLY REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE INCUR RED AND THAT THE UTILIZATION OR PUTTING THE ASSET FOR USE HAS NO REL EVANCE. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF ASSESSEE THE LD COMM ISSIONER ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO FIRST ISSUE R ELATED WITH MAT CREDIT AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE FA CTS AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE CO NTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO REMAINING THREE ISSUES WERE NOT ACCE PTED. FOR SECOND ISSUE THE LD. COMMISSIONER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ONLY WHEN ASSET ARE INSTALLED AND UTILIZE D FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITA NO. 1205/M/14- NAVIN FLUORINE INTERNATIONAL LT D. 6 BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO EXAMINE T HE SAID ISSUE AND ERRONEOUSLY ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE H AD ADMITTED THAT THEY ARE READY TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, EXCISE R ECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM THAT THE ASSET WERE INSTALLED AND UTILIZE D AT DEWAS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO RE-EXAMINE THE IS SUE AFRESH AND PASS THE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. FOR THIRD ISSUE REGARDING ADJUST MENT UNDER SECTION 145A, THE LD. COMMISSIONER TOOK THE VIEW THAT NO EN QUIRY WAS CONDUCTED BY THE AO, THUS, THE ALLOWANCE OF CLAIM CAUSED PREJ UDICE TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EX AMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH AS PER LAW. FOR FOURTH ISSUE RELATED WITH CAPITAL E XPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF ASSET ACQUIRED BUT NOT PUT TO USE. THE LD. COMMISSI ONER 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 INTER EST OF REVENUE. THUS, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER, THE ASS ESSEE 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 RE VENUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE REVISION IS BASED ON AUDIT OBJECTIONS. THE REVI SION BASED ON AUDIT OBJECTION AND AS THE LD. COMMISSIONER WAS OF DIFFER ENT VIEW IS NOT ENOUGH TO SAY THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OF FICER IS ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THE LD. COM MISSIONER CAN EXERCISE ITA NO. 1205/M/14- NAVIN FLUORINE INTERNATIONAL LT D. 7 HIS JURISDICTION ON ITS SATISFACTION THAT THE EXERC ISE OF JURISDICTION IS EXISTED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION, THE LD. AR R ELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. S OHANA 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 OFFI CER 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. CI T 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 ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDING. THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 15.11.2011, 23.1 1.2011 AND 20.12.2011 EXPLAINED THE FACTS RELATED WITH THE ADJUSTMENT UND ER SECTION 145A. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF ASSE SSEE AND ALLOWED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATE D 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 ASSESSIN G OFFICER. REGARDING ITA NO. 1205/M/14- NAVIN FLUORINE INTERNATIONAL LT D. 8 DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 35, THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 23.11.2011 FURNISHED ALL DETAILS BEFOR E THE AO, COPY OF WHICH IS AT PAGE NO. 60 TO 65 OF PAPER BOOK. THE LD. AR O F THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE QUESTION OF ASSET PUT TO USE IS NO T RELEVANT UNDER SECTION 35. THE AO MADE ENQUIRY AND ALL QUERIES RAISED BY A O WAS REPLIED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESS EE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN MALABAR INDUSTRIA L COMPANY LTD VS CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT VS MAX INDIA LTD [2 007] 295 ITR 282 (SC), HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. HINDUSTA N CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (374 ITR 103) AND DECISION OF HONBLE GUJAR AT HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. GUJARAT ALUMINUM EXTRUSION PVT. LTD. (263 I TR 453), HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS NIRAV MODI [2017] 390 I TR 292 (BOM), CIT VS GABRIEL INDIA LTD [1993] 203 ITR 108, MOIL L TD VS CIT [2017] 396 ITR 244 (BOM), CIT VS FINE JEWELLERY (INDIA) LT D [2015]372 ITR 303 (BOM), HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ITO VS DG H OUSING PROJECTS LTD [2012] 343 ITR 329( DELHI), DIT VS JYOTI FOUNDA TION [2013]357 ITR 388(DELHI) 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPO RTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE FURTHER SUBMITS THA T 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 ORDE R IS PASSED WITHOUT MAKING ENQUIRIES AND VERIFICATION WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE, OR ITA NO. 1205/M/14- NAVIN FLUORINE INTERNATIONAL LT D. 9 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 FIND ING WHILE REVISING THE ORDER. THE AO HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND WHILE GRANTI NG ADJUSTMENT UNDER SECTION 145A. NO SPECIFIC ORDER IS MADE BY ASSES SING 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 ASSE SSMENT ORDER. THE ORDER PASSED BY AO IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE IN SUPPORT OF H ER SUBMISSIONS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE 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. A R FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IN COMPLIANCE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTU NITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REQUIRED TO GIVE OPPORTUN ITY BEFORE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES 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. COMM ISSIONER VIDE HIS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 25.10.2013, PROPOS ED TO REVISE THE ITA NO. 1205/M/14- NAVIN FLUORINE INTERNATIONAL LT D. 10 ASSESSMENT ORDER ON FOUR ISSUES, WHICH CONSIST OF A LLOWANCE OF MAT CREDIT, DEPRECIATION ON IMPAIRED FIXED ASSET, DEDUC TION ON ACCOUNT OF ADJUSTMENT UNDER SECTION 145A AND CAPITAL EXPENDITU RE ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESS EE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE ALLOWANCE OF MAT CREDIT AS RECTIFIABLE MISTAKE AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECTI FY THE SAME. HOWEVER, ON THE ISSUES RELATED WITH DEPRECIATION ON IMPAIRED FIXED ASSET, DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF ADJUSTMENT UNDER SECTION 145A AND CAP ITAL EXPENDITURE ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH THE LD. CIT DIRECTED THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO PASS ORDER AFRESH AFTER MAKING THE PROPER INQUIRIES/ VERIFICAT ION. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONTESTED THE ISSUE RELATED WITH M AT CREDIT, WHILE MAKING SUBMISSIONS. 11. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO LTD (SUPRA) HAS LAID DOWN THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPAL; A BARE READING OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT 1961, MA KES IT CLEAR THAT THE PREREQUISITE FOR THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY TH E CIT SUO MOTO UNDER IT, IS THAT THE ORDER OF ITO IS ERRONEOUS, SO FAR AS IT I S PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THE CIT HAS TO BE SATISFIED TWIN CONDIT IONS, 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 T HE 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 WH EN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS THAT THE SECTION WILL BE ATTRACTED. AN IN CORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACT OR AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW WILL SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDER ITA NO. 1205/M/14- NAVIN FLUORINE INTERNATIONAL LT D. 11 BEING ERRONEOUS. IN THE SAME CATEGORY FALLS ORDERS PASSED WITHOUT APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE OR WITHOU T 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 PROVISI ON OF THE ACT AND THIS TASK IS ENTRUSTED TO THE REVENUE. IF DUE TO AN ERRO NEOUS 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 ER RONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF A N ORDER OF AO, CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENU E, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN ITO, ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSE PERMISSIBLE IN LAW A ND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE, OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE A ND THE ITO HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE CIT DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANN OT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVE NUE. UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY ITO IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. HONBLE 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 C AN BE EXERCISED ONLY IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES SPECIFIED THEREIN EXIST. TWO CIRCUMST ANCES MUST EXIST TO ENABLE THE CIT TO EXERCISE THE POWER OF REVISION U NDER THIS SUB SECTION VIZ ( 1) THE ORDER SHOULD BE ERRONEOUS AND ( 2) BY VIRT UE OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS PREJUDICE MUST HAVE BEEN CAUSED TO THE IN TEREST OF THE REVENUE. AND ORDER CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS UNLESS IT I S 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 SIMP LY BECAUSE ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN MORE CEL EBRATORY. THIS SECTION DOES NOT VISUALISE A CASE OF SUBSTITUTION OF THE JU DGEMENT OF THE CIT FOR THAT OF THE ITO, WHO PASSED THE ORDER, UNLESS THE DECISI ON 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 ITA NO. 1205/M/14- NAVIN FLUORINE INTERNATIONAL LT D. 12 FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DETERMINE T HE INCOME EITHER BY ACCEPTING THE ACCOUNTS FOR BY MAKING SOME ESTIMATE HIMSELF. THE CIT ON PERUSAL OF RECORDS, MAY BE OF OPINION THAT THE ESTI MATE 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 DE TERMINE BY THE ITO. THAT WOULD NOT VEST THE CIT WITH POWER TO RE-EXAMI NE 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 C ANNOT BE TERMED TO BE ERRONEOUS, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE CIT DOES NOT FEEL SAT ISFIED 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 1 ST REQUIREMENT, NAMELY THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS, I S ABSENT. SIMILARLY, IF AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS BUT NOT PREJUDI CIAL 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 R EVISION BECAUSE THE 2 ND REQUIREMENT MUST BE FULFILLED. THERE MUST BE SOME P RIMA 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 W AS JUST HAS BEEN IMPOSED. WHEN EXERCISE OF STATUTORY POWER IS DEPEND ENT UPON THE EXISTENCE OF CERTAIN OBJECTIVE FACTS, THE AUTHORITY BEFORE EX ERCISING SUCH POWER MUST HAVE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SATISFY IN THAT REGARD. IF THE ACTION OF THE AUTHORITIES CHALLENGED BEFORE THE COURT, IT WOULD B E OPEN TO THE COURTS TO EXAMINE WHETHER RELEVANT OBJECTIVE FACTORS WERE LAB EL FROM THE RECORDS CALLED FOR AND EXAMINED BY SUCH AUTHORITY. FURTHER, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VERSUS ANIL KUMAR SHARMA (335 ITR 83 DELHI ) HELD AS UNDER: THE AO HAD EXAMINED EVERY ASPECT AND AP PLIED HIS MIND ON ALL FACTS BEFORE ACCEPTING THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME SUBMITTE D BY THE ASSESSEE AND PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT WAS THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT A SPECIFIC REPLY HAD BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE W ITH REGARD TO THE PURCHASE OF LAND AT VILLAGE TUGALKABAD AND THE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED ITA NO. 1205/M/14- NAVIN FLUORINE INTERNATIONAL LT D. 13 BY HONBLE HIGH COURT IN RESPECT OF THIS LAND WAS A LSO SUBMITTED TO THE AO. THE TRIBUNAL AFTER EXAMINING THE FACT OF THE CA SE OBSERVED THAT ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD APPLIED HIS MIND OR NOT, IT W AS THE PREROGATIVE OF THE AO TO DRAFT HIS ORDER, AND IF HE FAILED TO RECORD C ERTAIN FINDING THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE PENALISED THEREFORE. THE TRIBUNAL FUR THER 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 PURCHA SE DATE IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF LAND AT VILLAGE TUGALKABAD WAS AND THA T ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE THERETO HAD SUPPLIED REQUISITE DETAILS AND SUBMITT ED 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 TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE COMMISSIONER IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 ALSO HAD ALL THESE DETAILS AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE BEFOR E IT, BUT HAD NOT ABLE TO POINT OUT DEFECTS CONCLUSIVELY IN THE SAID MATERIAL , FOR ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION THAT PARTICULAR INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSES SMENT ON ACCOUNT OF NON-APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. T HE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND QUASHED THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263OF THE ACT. 12. FURTHER HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF DG HOU SING PROJECTS LTD (SUPRA) HELD THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IS A CONDI TION WHICH MUST BE SATISFIED FOR EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTIO N 263 OF INCOME-TAX ACT. THE MATTER CANNOT BE REMITTED BACK FOR FRESH DECISI ON TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONDUCT FURTHER INQUIRES WITHOUT A FINDI NG THAT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. THE COMMISSIONER MUST AFTER RECORDING RE ASONS HOLD THAT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT DIRECT RECONSIDERATION ONLY WHEN THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. AN ORDER OF REMIT CANN OT BE PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER TO ASK THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. IN JYOTI F OUNDATION (SUPRA) THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT WHILE DISTINGUISHING THE O RDER PASSED AFTER ITA NO. 1205/M/14- NAVIN FLUORINE INTERNATIONAL LT D. 14 PROPER INQUIRY AND WITHOUT INQUIRY HELD THAT THE OR DERS WHICH ARE PASSED WITHOUT INQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION ARE TREATED AS ERR ONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, BUT ORDERS WHICH ARE PA SSED 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 UN DERTAKEN, THE COMMISSIONER MUST RECORD A FINDING THAT THE ORDER M ADE IS ERRONEOUS. THIS CAN HAPPEN IF AN INQUIRY AND VERIFICATION IS C ONDUCTED BY COMMISSIONER AND HE IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH AND SHOW T HE ERROR OR MISTAKE MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER, MAKING THE ORDER UNSUSTA INABLE 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, HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS ASHOK L IGANI (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 TH E 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 DETA IL IN THE SAME MANNER AS A JUDICIAL OFFICER IS SUPPOSED TO WRITE THE JUDGMEN TS. 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 H AD SURRENDERED A SUM (XXXX) OFFERED THE SAME FOR TAX. HOWEVER IN HIS INC OME-TAX RETURN, THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED A SUM OF (XXX) ONLY AGAINST TH E SURRENDERED AMOUNT OF ITA NO. 1205/M/14- NAVIN FLUORINE INTERNATIONAL LT D. 15 (XXXX) LAKHS AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. IN SUCH A SCENA RIO, THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AT LEAST A BRIEF DISCUSSION RECORDING A SATISF ACTION ON THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE 14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITION, NOW, WE ARE SH ALL EXAMINE AND PERUSE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE PERUSAL OF ASSESSM ENT ORDER REVEALS THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFF ICER 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 CONS IDERING THE REPLIES OF THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER PREPARED THE WOR KING OF ADJUSTMENT UNDER SECTION 145A VIDE ANNEXURE 2 OF THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER. IN OUR VIEW THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED THE NECESSARY DET AILS AND AFTER EXAMINING IT PREPARED THE WORKING OF ADJUSTMENT UND ER SECTION 145A. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PREPARED THE DETAILED WORKING VIDE ANNEXURE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE MARE FACTS THAT IN THE VI EW OF LD. CIT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ISSUE ARE NO T CORRECT. THE LD. CIT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY CLEAR FINDING AS TO WHICH ENQUIRY WAS NOT CARRIED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE HONBLE 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 ASSES SMENT, THE SAME CANNOT BE BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS BY THE COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAUSE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTE N MORE ELABORATELY. THIS SECTION DOES NOT VISUALIZE A CASE OF SUBSTITUT ION OF THE JUDGMENT OF ITA NO. 1205/M/14- NAVIN FLUORINE INTERNATIONAL LT D. 16 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. TH E 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 LEF T TO THE COMMISSIONER HE WOULD HAVE ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT A FIGURE HIGH ER THAN THE ONE DETERMINED BY THE ITO. THAT WOULD NOT VEST THE COMM ISSIONER 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 GI VEN ANY FINDING THAT THE ADJUSTMENT MADE BY ASSESSING O FFICER IS ERRONEOUS (PARA 6.3 OF ORDER). THUS, IN OUR VIEW THE TWIN CON DITION ORDER PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 263 ARE NOT SATISFIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A REASONABLE AND POSSIBLE VIEW. EVEN, OTHERWISE IN OU R VIEW THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ERRONEOUS ON THE ISSUE REL ATED WITH ADJUSTMENT UNDER SECTION 145A. THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER I S SET ASIDE TO THAT EXTENT. 15. SO FAR AS OTHER REMAINING TWO ISSUES, RELATED WITH DEPRECIATION ON IMPAIRED FIXED ASSET AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ON SCI ENTIFIC RESEARCH ARE CONCERNED, WE HAVE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISCUSSED NOR ITA NO. 1205/M/14- NAVIN FLUORINE INTERNATIONAL LT D. 17 THERE IS ANY REFERENCE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ANY INVESTIGATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS S ILENTLY ALLOWED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. NO DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN US, THAT THEY FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON RE SEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND C OPIES 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 ORD ER. IN OUR VIEW THE TWIN CONDITION AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 263 ARE AVAILAB LE FOR REVISING THE ORDER ON THE ISSUES RELATED TO DEPRECIATION ON IMPA IRED FIXED ASSET AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. HENCE, THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER IS UPHELD QUA THE ISSUES RELATED TO DE PRECIATION ON IMPAIRED FIXED ASSET AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ON SCI ENTIFIC 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 SUFFICI ENT OPPORTUNITY BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER IN ACCIDENCE WITH LAW. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH 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 ITA NO. 1205/M/14- NAVIN FLUORINE INTERNATIONAL LT D. 18 BY ORDER, (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY/