FUTURA POLYESTERS LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3290/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0362 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHYAM GHIA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Depreciation; Retrospective amendment; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 143(3); 115JB; 148; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INC OME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HONBLE SH. R. C. SHARMA , AM & HONBLE SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM ./ I.T.A. NO . 3290 /MUM/201 6 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 ) FUTURA POLYESTERS LTD. PARAGON, CONDOMINIUM, 3 RD FLOOR, PANDURANG BUDHKAR MARG, MUMBAI - 400013 / VS. D C I T 5 (1) (2) R. NO. 560, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 4000 20 ./ ./ PAN NO. AA A CI3404K ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHYAM GHIA / RESPONDENTBY : SHRI ABI RAMA KARTHIKEYAN , DR / DATE OF HEARING : 26 .09 .2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.11.2018 / O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, J UDICIAL MEMBER : THE P RESENT APPE AL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (APPEAL) 10, MUMBAI DATED 25.02 .16 F OR AY 20 08 - 09 ON THE GROUNDS MENTIONED HEREIN BELOW: - 2 I.T.A. NO. 3290 /MUM/201 6 FUTURA POLYESTERS LTD 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN R EOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF DISALLOWING DEPRECIATION OF RS.2,76,13,057 / - @ OF 25% ON PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF ADDING RS.21,58,141/ - AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGA RDING ADDITIONS OF RS.59,41,288/ - BEING PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS, TO BOOK PROFIT U/S 115 JB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, ALTER BY SUBSTITUTION OR OTHERWISE THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURER OF POLYESTER STA PLE FIBER ETC. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 WAS FILED ON 30/10/2007 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.NIL AND S UBSEQUENTLY, THE 3 I.T.A. NO. 3290 /MUM/201 6 FUTURA POLYESTERS LTD CASE WAS RE - OPENED BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 26/02/2013 AND THEREAFTER ORDER OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 31.10.13 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER NORMAL PROVISION AT RS. 1,73,74,860/ - AND BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB AT RS. 19,28,42,300/ - . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, A SSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE CASE OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BY RAISING THE ABOVE GROUNDS. GROUND NO. 1 3 . THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 148 OF THE I.T. ACT. 4 . WE HAVE HEARD THE COUNSELS FOR BOTH THE PARTIES AND WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDERS PASSED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) 4 I.T.A. NO. 3290 /MUM/201 6 FUTURA POLYESTERS LTD WHILE DEALING WITH THIS GROUND IN PARA NO. 4 OF ITS ORDER HAD CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT SINCE THE ASSES SEE HAD NOT FILED ANY OBJECTION FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE AO, THEREFORE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO CHALLENGE THE REOPENING AND IN THIS RESPECT, RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF OPG METALS AND FINSEC LTD. V RS. CIT 358 ITR 144 AND THUS, LD. CIT(A) HAD RIGHTLY UPHELD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. EVEN BEFORE US, N O NEW FACTS O R CONTRARY JUDGMENTS HAVE B EEN BROUGHT ON RECORD I N ORDER TO CONTROVERT OR REBUT THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, THE RE ARE NO REASON S FOR US TO INTERFERE INTO OR DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT(A). HENCE , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ARE JUDICIOUS AND ARE WE LL REASONED. RESULTANTLY, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED . 5 I.T.A. NO. 3290 /MUM/201 6 FUTURA POLYESTERS LTD GROUND NO. 2 . 5 . THIS GROUND S RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF DISALLOWING DEPRECIATION OF RS.2,76,13,057/ - @ OF 25% ON PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT. 6 . WE HAVE HEARD COUNSELS FOR BOTH THE PARTIES AT LENGTH AND WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, JUDGMENT CITED BY BOTH THE PARTIES AS WELL AS THE ORDERS PASSED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES. BEFORE WE DECIDE THE MERITS OF THE CASE, IT IS NECESSARY TO EVALUATE THE ORDERS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ABOVE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESEE IN PARA NO. 6 OF ITS ORDER AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW: - 6. THE THIRD IS.SUE IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.2,76,13,0577 - ON TECHNICAL KNOWHOW. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @25% BEING RATE ALLOWED ON INTANGIBLE ASSET. THE CLAIM WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF PRODUCTION UNITS. AS PER PROVISION OF SEC.35, THE DEDUCTION AMOUNT COVERS THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRODUCT. THE ASSESSEE 6 I.T.A. NO. 3290 /MUM/201 6 FUTURA POLYESTERS LTD HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE/COPY OF AGREEMENT ETC. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM OF THE T ECHNICAL KNOWHOW OBTAINED. ACCOR DINGLY, TH E EXCESS CLAIM MADE FOR DEPRECIATION ON TECHNICAL KNOWHOW AMOUNTING TO RS.2,76,13,057 7 - WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6.1 THE LAP. VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE AO HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE. THE LD. A.R. HAS SUBMITTED THAT - THE AO ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION OF RS. 2,76,13,057/ - ON TECHNICAL KNOWHOW. 6.1.1. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE LEARNED AR HAS MADE SIMILAR ARGUMENTS AS THAT OF THE ARGUMENTS MADE BEFORE THE AO. 6.2. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER THE DEPRECIATION ON TECHNICAL KNOWHOW SHOULD BE ALLOWED AT 15% OR 25%. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON CERTAIN ITEMS AT THE RATE OF 25% H OLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS INCURRED CERTAIN EXPENDITURE FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRODUCT AND THE RESEARCH BEING INTANGIBLE ASSET IT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 25%. THE AO HAS DENI ED THE DEPRECIATION CLAIM AT HIGHER RATE AS AS THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENTARY 7 I.T.A. NO. 3290 /MUM/201 6 FUTURA POLYESTERS LTD EVIDENCE/COPY OF AGREEMENT ET CETERA IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM OF THE TECHNICAL KNOWHOW OBTAINED. ACCORDINGLY THE AO HAS DENIED THE EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON TECHNICAL KNOWHOW. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELL ATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO THE LEARNED AR HAS NOT FURNISHING ANY DETAILS OF THE INTANGIBLE ASSETS ON WHICH IT CLAIMED HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION, DESPITE MY ASKING FOR THEM. IN VIEW OF THIS I CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. THE GROUND IS DISMISSED. AF TER HAVING GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS WELL AS ORDERS PASSED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES, WE FIND FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE AO HAD DENIED THE DEPRECIATION CLAIM AT HIGHER RATE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE/COPY OF A GREEMENT ET CETERA IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM OF THE TECHNICAL KNOWHOW OBTAINED. THEREFORE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS, THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS RIGHTLY DISMISSED BY LD. CIT(A). EVEN BEFORE US, N O NEW FACTS O R CONTRARY JUDGMENTS HAVE B EEN BROUGHT ON REC ORD I N ORDER TO CONTROVERT OR REBUT THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, THERE ARE NO REASON S FOR US TO INTERFERE INTO OR DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS SO 8 I.T.A. NO. 3290 /MUM/201 6 FUTURA POLYESTERS LTD RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT(A). HENCE , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ARE JUDICIOUS AND ARE WE LL REASONED. RESULTANTLY, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED . GROUND NO. 3 . 7. THIS GROUND S RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF SEC.36(I)(III) AND DISALLOWING INTEREST RS.1,56,816 OUT OF TOTAL INTEREST RS. 2,35,111. 8. WE HAVE HEARD COUNSELS FOR BOTH THE PARTIES AT LENGTH AND WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, JUDGMENT CITED BY BOTH THE PARTIES AS WELL AS THE ORDERS PASSED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES. BEFORE WE DECIDE THE MERITS OF THE CASE, IT IS NECESSARY TO EVALUATE THE ORDERS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ABOVE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESEE IN PARA NO. 7 OF ITS O RDER AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW: - 9 I.T.A. NO. 3290 /MUM/201 6 FUTURA POLYESTERS LTD 7. THE FO URTH ISSUE IS REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 21 ,58,1417 - AS SHORT' TERM CAPITAL GAIN. ON PERUSAL OF WORKING ON SALE OF ASSETS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE BUILDING AT POLIVAKKAM, TIRVALLOR WAS SOLD FOR SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.4,79,98,496/ - . FURTHER, FROM DEPRECIATION STATEMENT AS PER IT. ACT, THE AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS CONSIDERED SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.4,58,40,355/ - ONLY AND SALE CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF FACTORY BUILDING AND BLOCK WAS TRE ATED 'NIL' AND NO INCOME WAS OFFERED. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED WHY SEC. 50 BE NOT INVOKED TO TREAT THE GAIN AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR DO ING SO. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO WORK S OUT THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN TO RS . 21,58,141/ - . 7.1 THE LAR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE AO HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE LD. A.R. HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO ERRED IN ADDING RS.21,58,141/ - AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 7.2. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. EVEN THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED A GROUND IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON CHARGING OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY THE AO, HE HAS NOT IN SISTED ON THE ISSUE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE 10 I.T.A. NO. 3290 /MUM/201 6 FUTURA POLYESTERS LTD PROCEEDINGS. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ON 10/2/2016 ALSO THE LEARNED AR HAS RIOT LEFT ANY ARGUMENT. IN VIEW OF THIS THE GROUND IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. AFTER HAVING GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS WELL AS ORDERS PASSED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES, WE FIND FROM THE RECORDS TH AT ASSESSEE HAD NOT INSISTED ON THE ISSUE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE LD. CIT(A) HAD RIGHTLY UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN BEFORE US, N O NEW FACTS O R CONTRARY JUDGMENTS HAVE B EEN BROUGH T ON RECORD I N ORDER TO CONTROVERT OR REBUT THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, THERE ARE NO REASON S FOR US TO INTERFERE INTO OR DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT(A). HENCE , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FINDINGS S O RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ARE JUDICIOUS AND ARE WE LL REASONED. RESULTANTLY, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED . 11 I.T.A. NO. 3290 /MUM/201 6 FUTURA POLYESTERS LTD GROUND NO. 4 . 9 . THIS GROUND S RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF SEC.36(I)(III) AND DISALLOWING INTEREST RS.1,56,816 OUT OF TOTAL INTEREST RS. 2,35,111. 10 . WE HAVE HEARD COUNSELS FOR BOTH THE PARTIES AT LENGTH AND WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, JUDGMENT CITED BY BOTH THE PARTIES AS WELL AS THE ORDERS PASSED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES. BEFORE WE DECIDE THE MERITS OF THE CASE, IT IS NECESSARY TO EVALUATE THE ORDERS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ABOVE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESEE IN PARA NO. 8 OF ITS ORDER AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW: - 8. THE FIFTH ISSUE IS REGARDING ADDITION OF RS.59,41,288/ - BEING PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS TO BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, PROVISIONS FOR DO UBTFUL DEBTS AND AMOUNTS OF DEFERRED TAXES ARE TO BE INCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB AS PER THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN BY THE FINA NCE ACT, 2009 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM A.Y.2001 - 02N ONWARDS. THE ASSESSEE HAS 12 I.T.A. NO. 3290 /MUM/201 6 FUTURA POLYESTERS LTD NOT GIVEN ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR NOT INCLUDING THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS AND HAS RELIED UPON A DECISION OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. WITH RE GARD TO A.Y.2007 - 08, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILE WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ON THE SAME ISSUE CHALLENGING THE AMENDED TO SEC.115JB. HOWEVER, HON'BLE HIGH COURT DID NOT GRANT ANY STAY FOR PASSING ON ORDER U/S 154 AND HENCE THE ORDER U/S 154 OF TH E ACT WAS PASSED BY ADDING THE PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS AND DEFEI TAX LIABILITIES. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE WITHDRAWS THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY I T. ACCORDINGLY, THE AMOUNT OF RS.59,41,288/ - BEING PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS WAS ADDED TO THE BOOK PR OFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. 8.1 THE LAR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE AO HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE LD. A.R. HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO ERRED IN ADDING RS.59,41,288/ - BEING PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS TO BOOK P ROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. 8.1.1 DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE - LEARNED AR HAS MADE SIMILAR ARGUMENTS AS THAT OF THE ARGUMENTS MADE BEFORE THE AO. 8.2. I HAVE CARE FULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ID.AR. I HAVE ALSO GONE 13 I.T.A. NO. 3290 /MUM/201 6 FUTURA POLYESTERS LTD THROUGH THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE ID.AR. AS SEEN FROM THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AR EXCEPT RELYING ON THE DECISION OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF YOK OGAWA INDIA LTD. 204 TAXMAN 305, HAS NOT .GIVEN ANY JUSTIFICATION AND DETAILS OF THE PROVISIONS MADE. THE LEARNED AR HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY FINANCIALS DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. AS SUCH IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO VERIFY WHETHER THE AMOUNTS WERE DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT OR NOT AND WHETHER THE SAME WAS REDUCED FROM THE SUNDRY DEBTORS IN THE BALANCE - SHEET, AS PER THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE REFERRED CASE WHILE GIVING THE RELIEF IN THAT CASE. IN VIEW OF THIS, I CONFIRM THE A DDITION MADE BY THE AO. THE GROUND IS DISMISSED. AFTER HAVING GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS WELL AS ORDERS PASSED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES, WE FIND FROM THE RECORDS THAT ASSESSEE EXCEPT RELYING ON THE DECISION OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. 204 TAXMAN 305, HAD NOT GIVEN ANY JUSTIFICATION AND DETAILS OF THE PROVISIONS MADE AND THEREFORE IN ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE VERIFIED. HENCE LD. CIT(A) HAD RIGHTLY UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO AN D DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 14 I.T.A. NO. 3290 /MUM/201 6 FUTURA POLYESTERS LTD EVEN BEFORE US, N O NEW FACTS O R CONTRARY JUDGMENTS HAVE B EEN BROUGHT ON RECORD I N ORDER TO CONTROVERT OR REBUT THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, THERE ARE NO REASON S FOR US TO INTERFERE INTO OR DEV IATE FROM THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT(A). HENCE , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ARE JUDICIOUS AND ARE WE LL REASONED. RESULTANTLY, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED . 11 . IN THE NET RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COST. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND NOV , 2018 . SD/ - SD/ - ( R. C. SHARMA ) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) / A COUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 22 . 11 .201 8 SR.PS . DHANANJAY 15 I.T.A. NO. 3290 /MUM/201 6 FUTURA POLYESTERS LTD / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F I LE / BY ORDER, . / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI