Adient (I) P Ltd (formerly Johnson Controls Automotive Ltd.,), Pune V. Commissioner of Income-tax - 6, Pune

ITA 785/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7670 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-04-2018
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revenue expenditure; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 194C; 147; 263

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE . , , BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.785/PUN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ADIENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, (EARLIER KNOWN AS JOHNSON CONTROLS AUTOMOTIVE LTD.,) PLOT NO.1, S.NO.235 & 245, HINJEWADI, TALUKA MULSHI, PUNE 411 057 PAN : AAACT6342D . /APPELLANT VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, PUNE . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KETAN VED REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR, CIT-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 12.04.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18.04.2018 / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THIS IS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R OF CIT-6, PUNE, DATED 27-03-2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER : THE APPELLANT OBJECTS TO THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6, PUNE ('CIT') DATED MARCH 25,2013 PA SSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT ('ACT') FOR THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING AMONG OTHER GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT IS ULTRA VIR ES, BAD IN LAW AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND HENCE OUGHT TO BE QUASHED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS THAT THE REASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERR ONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 2 3. THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FA CT THAT JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE EXERCISED WH ERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND ONE OF THE VIEW HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FA CT THAT JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE EXERCISED WH ERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND ONE OF THE VIEW HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT PAYM ENT IN NATURE OF REIMBURSEMENT OF THIRD PARTY EXPENSES (I.E. REMUNER ATION PAID BY JOHNSON CONTROLS HOLDING(S) PTE LIMITED, SINGAPORE TO EMPLOYEES DEPUTED TO APPELLANT), NOT INVOLVING ANY ELEMENT OF SERVICE S AND ESSENTIALLY AN OBLIGATION OF/REQUIRED TO BE INCURRED BY THE ENTITY WHICH REIMBURSES TO ANOTHER PARTY FOR INCURRING EXPENSES ON ITS BEHALF COULD NOT BE TAXABLE IN INDIA. 5. THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY APPLIED HIS MIND WHILE ISSUING THE NIL WITH HOLDING TAX CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 197 OF THE ACT FOR PART REIMBURSEMENT OF THE REMUNERATION PAID BY JOHNSON CONTROLS HOLDING(S) PTE LIMITED, SI NGAPORE TO EMPLOYEES DEPUTED TO APPELLANT. 6. THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON WRONG PRE MISE AND ALSO WITHOUT CALLING FOR THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. 7. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ERRED IN MAKING THE FOL LOWING OBSERVATION WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN L AW: ' ... THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO ENQUIRE AS TO WHETHER IT IS A CASE OF 194C OR 194J AND WHETHER ASSESSEE ... (PARA GRAPH 5)' ' .... THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO LOOK INTO TH E BALANCE SHEET OF ASSESSEE COMPANY AND TO VERIFY WHETHER THIS AMOUNT OF RS.2, 06,39,067/- ..... (PARAGRAPH 5)' ' AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, THERE IS A MISMATCH OF AMOUNT PROPOSED TO BE REMITTED AND AMOUNT MENTIONED IN TDS CERTIFICATES .IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 69,12,276/- WAS REQUIRED TO BE ADDED BACK TO TH E TOTAL INCOME. 'CERTIFICATE DATED 22/12/2006 ISSUED BY DELOITTE HA SKINS & SELLS MENTIONED ABOUT PROPOSED REMITTANCE OF US$ (NET) 455033.27 AND FAILED TO CAUSE FURTHER ENQUIRIES TO ARRIVE AT CORRECT STATE-OF-AFFAIRS. 8. THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN SET ASIDE THE RE-ASSESS MENT ORDER AND DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPLETE THE ASS ESSMENT AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 9 . EACH ONE OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS WITHOU T PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER. 10. THE APPELLANT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO AMEND, ALTE R OR ADD TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY OPERATES IN SYSTEM SOFTWARE CONVERSION, PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDIES, CAD/CAM/FEA AND APPLICATION RE-ENGINEERING WITH RE SPECT TO 3 AUTOMOTIVE SEATING AND INTERIORS. ASSESSEE FILED THE RETUR N OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.12.96 CRORES (ROUNDED OFF). THE A SSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.19.90 CRORES (ROUNDED OFF). SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMEN T WAS RE- OPENED BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT ON 28-03-20 12. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO FOR REOPENING THE ASSESS MENT INDICATE THAT THE CORE ISSUES RELATES TO THE TAXABILITY OF SALARY PAYMEN TS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO A FOREIGN ENTITY IN CONNECTION WITH SALARY PAID TO THE EXPATRIATES. EVENTUALLY, THE SAID PROCEEDINGS WERE DROPP ED VIDE THE LETTER DATED 18-03-2013. 4. RELEVANT FACTS ON THIS ISSUE OF SALARY PAYMENTS PAID BY ASSESSEE INCLUDE THAT ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENT OF RS.2,06,39,067/- (US$455,033.27) TO J.C. SINGAPORE WITHOUT MAKING TDS TO A NON - RESIDENT. ASSESSEE APPLIED TO THE AO FOR OBTAINING THE EX EMPTION CERTIFICATE FROM MAKING THE TDS. HOWEVER, AO GRANTED TWO CERTIFICATES FOR US$3,08,675.33 AND THERE WAS NO NIL CERTIFICATE OBTAINE D BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE AO TO THE EXTENT OF RS.69,12,276/-. F OR THE BALANCE OF US$146,357.94 (69,12,276 INR) ASSESSEE NEITHER TAKEN T HE NIL TDS CERTIFICATE FROM THE AO NOR MADE TDS BEFORE THE SAID AMOU NT WAS PAID TO J.C. SINGAPORE. THIS AMOUNT OF RS.2,06,39,067/- CONSTITUTE S REIMBURSEMENT OF REMUNERATION PAID BY J.C. SINGAPORE TO THE EMPLOYEES DEPUTED FOR THE SERVICES OF THE ASSESSEE IN I NDIA. FOR TAXING THE SAME, AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT FOR TAXING THE EN TIRE AMOUNT U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ON OBTAINING THE EXPLANATION OF THE A SSESSEE AO DROPPED THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 5. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON 07-10-2014, THE CIT PROPOSED TO REVISE THE SAID RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE AO AND THEREFORE, CIT ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.263 OF THE ACT. CIT WAS SPECIFIC TO THE ISSUE O F DISALLOWANCE 4 OF RS.2,06,39,067/- UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OBJECTING TO THE SAM E, IN PRINCIPLE, AND PROVIDED THE REASONS EXPLAINING THE NON-CHAR GEABILITY OF SUCH PAYMENT OF RS.2,06,39,067/- TO TAX IN INDIA. IN THE SUBMISSIONS, ASSESSEE EXPLAINED TO THE CIT IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUS E NOTICES THAT THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED NO DEDUCTION CERTIFICATE TO THE EXTENT OF 146,357 US$ (RS.69,12,276/-) AND THEREFORE, IN PRINCIPLE, THE PAYMENTS WERE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT A SSESSEE WAS UNDER OBLIGATION TO MAKE PAYMENT TO JOHNSON CONTROLS PT E LTD., SINGAPORE IN LIEU OF THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE EMPLOYE ES OF THE SAID PAYEE COMPANY. THE GROSS AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE SAID C OMPANY WORKS OUT TO RS.2,06,39,067/- (455,033.27 UDS). ASSESSEE OBTAINED THE NIL TDS CERTIFICATE IN THIS REGARD WITH THE EXCEPTION TO A SMA LL PORTION OF RS.69,12,276/-. THUS, IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT-6, PUNE THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS.2,06,39,067/- (455,033.27 UDS) PAID FO R EXPATRIATES SALARY IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA AND RELIED ON THE NIL TDS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AO HIMSELF AT TWO DIFFERENT DAT ES. THE REASONS WERE NOT MENTIONED IN THE SAID DECISIONS OF ISSUIN G TWO DIFFERENT CERTIFICATES ON TWO DIFFERENT DATES. ON CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, THE CIT-6, PUNE CAME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION : 5. . . . . . . . . .THIS SHOWN THAT STILL RS.69,12 ,276/- REMAINED TO BE TAXED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. NOW W ITH THESE FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO LOOK INTO THE FOLLOWING ISSUES WHILE COMPLETING THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. . . . . . 6. THIS ISSUE IS DISCUSSED IN PAGE 5 OF HIS ORDER AND GAVE THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION TO THE AO. THE SAME IS EXTRACTED AS FOLLOWS : 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED AB OVE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W. S. 147 DATED 18-03-2013 IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER P ASSED THE ORDER ON WRONG PREMISE, BY TAKING THE ASSESSEE AT FACE VALUE AND WITHOUT 5 CARRYING OUT ANY INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION. THE RE- ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 DATED 18-03-2013 IS, T HEREFORE, SET ASIDE WITH DIRECTIONS TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH A FTER CONSIDERING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND AFTER ALLOWING AN OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. AS SUCH, THERE IS NO DISCUSSION ON HOW THE RE-ASSESSMEN T ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVE NUE. FURTHER, CIT DID NOT GIVE HIS FINDING ON HOW THE SAID PAYMENTS ARE CHARGEABLE T O TAX IN INDIA. 7. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH REVISION ORDER OF THE CIT, ASSESSE E FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL WITH THE ABOVE SAID GROUNDS. 8. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT E RRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18-03-2013 AS ERRONEOUS AND IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. CIT HAS NOT INDICATED AS TO HOW THE PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS THE SALARY TO EXPATRIATES CONSTITUTE AS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA AND HOW THE RE- ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE AO IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERE ST OF THE REVENUE WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE ERRORS IN THE SAID ORDER AND WITH OUT QUANTIFYING THE REVENUE LOSS ON THIS ISSUE. MERELY STATING THAT RS.6 9,12,276/- REMAINS TO BE TAXED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T. A CT, 1961 IS ABSOLUTELY GENERAL IN NATURE IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC REA SON HOW THE SAID AMOUNT IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA WHILE MAJOR PORT ION OF THE SIMILAR PAYMENT OF RS.2,06,39,067/- IS HELD NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA. ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE NIL TDS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AO WHICH CONSTITUTES AN OPINION ALREADY IN EXISTENCE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPEAKING ORDER OF THE CIT WITH REFERENCE TO CHARGEABILITY OF THE PAYMENTS ON ONE SI DE AND THE ERRONEOUS NATURE OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE PREJUDICIAL NATURE TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER, THE REVISIO N ORDER OF THE CIT IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND REQUESTED FOR QUASHING OF THE S AME. AS 6 SUCH, THE CIT IS PRECLUDED LEGALLY U/S.263 OF THE ACT IN TAKING ONE OF THE OPINIONS ON THIS ISSUE. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS : 1. CIT VS. GABRIEL INDIA LTD. 203 ITR 108 (BOM.) 2. PR.CIT-1 VS. GLP INDIA PVT. LTD. 85 TAXMANN.CO M 103 (GUJARAT) FURTHER, ASSESSEE FILED THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FO R DEMONSTRATING THE UNSUSTAINABILITY OF THE REVISION ORDER OF THE CIT. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ARE EXT RACTED HERE AS UNDER : 14. THE APPELLANT WOULD LIKE TO RESPECTFULLY SUBM IT BEFORE THE HON'BLE MEMBERS THAT THE LEARNED CIT HAS FAILED TO APPRECIA TE THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND PASSED THE ORDER UNDER S ECTION 263 OF THE ACT, WITHOUT CONSIDERING/DEALING WITH THE EXPLANATIONS S UBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE HIM. 15. THE LEARNED CIT, IN ORDER DATED MARCH 27, 2015, HAS MERELY REPRODUCED THE TEXT OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECT ION 263 OF THE ACT AND HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING OR CONCLUSION AS TO HOW T HE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT ON THE ISSUES RAISED BY HIM DURING THE CO URSE OF THE 263 PROCEEDINGS ARE INCORRECT. HERE WE WOULD LIKE TO IN VITE YOUR HONOUR'S ATTENTION TO THE CHART FORWARDED DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING (REPRODUCING THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NOTICE OF THE CIT U/S. 263 AND THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 263) TO EVIDENCE THE FACT THAT TH E ORDER PASSED IS A MERE REPRODUCTION OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED. 16. THE LEARNED CIT MERELY SET-ASIDE THE REASSESSME NT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT WITH A D IRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE PROPER ENQUIRY AND TO VERI FY THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES CONNECTED WITH NON- DEDUCTION OF TDS ON C ERTAIN FOREIGN REMITTANCES. 17. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE APPELLANT HUMBLY SUBMITS T HAT THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IS NOT SUSTAINA BLE AND LIABLE TO QUASHED. 18. IN THIS REGARD, THE APPELLANT WOULD LIKE TO PLA CE RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN H ELD THAT THE CIT, BY MERELY STATING THAT AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED PROPER ENQ UIR I ES, CANNOT ASSUME JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT FO R SETTING-ASIDE THE ORDER UNLESS THE CIT HAS SHOWN HOW THE ORDER IS PRE JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE: THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE GABRIEL INDIA LTD. (203 ITR 108) HAS HELD THAT EVEN AFTER INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR REVISION AND HEARING THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT COULD NO T SAY THAT THE ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ERRONEOU S AND THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT REVENUE EXPENDITURE BUT AN EXPE NDITURE OF CAPITAL NATURE. THE CIT SIMPLY ASKED THE ITO TO RE- EXAMINE THE MATTER THAT, IN OUR OPINION, IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UND ER REVISION POWER OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 7 THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CLP INDIA (P.) LTD (85 TAXMANN.COM 103) HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE COMMISSIONER TOOK A VIEW THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT DEDUCT TAX AT SOU RCE WHILE MAKING PAYMENTS TO FOREIGN PART I ES, HE SHOULD HAVE PASSED AN ORDER TO THAT EFFECT, BUT, SINCE HE MERELY PASSED A REVISIONAL ORDER HOLDING THAT AO HAD NOT MADE PROPER ENQUIRIES, ORDE R SO PASSED BY HIM WAS TO BE SET ASIDE. THE APPELLANT WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT THE FACTS O F APPELLANT'S CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THIS DECISION OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT WHERE THE ISSUE SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS WITH REGARD TO AP PLICABILITY OF WITHHOLDING TAX PROVISIONS ON A PARTICULAR PAYMENT. IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE AS WELL, THE LEARNED CIT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FIN DING THAT TAX OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED ON REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND HAS S I MPLY SET- ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED AO , WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER REVISION EXERCISE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE AC T . 19. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPELLANT RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT UNDER SECTION 263 O F THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND H ENCE OUGHT TO BE QUASHED. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. CIT-DR FOR THE REVENUE HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT. LD. DR MENTIONED THAT THIS IS A CA SE OF AOS FAILURE TO CONDUCT PROPER INVESTIGATION AND VERIFICATION OF TH E FACTS, THEREFORE, IT IS A CASE OF ERRONEOUS ORDER AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS : 1. GEE VEE ENTERPRISES VS. ACIT 99 ITR 375 (DELHI) 2. CIT VS. EASTERN MEDIKIT LTD. ITA NO.595 OF 20 11, DATED 03-06- 2011 3. VIRBHADRA SINGH (HUF) VS. PR. CIT 86 TAXMANN.COM 113 (HIMACHAL PRADESH) 4. GOPISONS DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT ITA NO. 356/PN/2012, DATED 03-07-2013. 10. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDER O F THE CIT AS WELL AS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE INCURRED TOTAL SUM OF RS.2.06 CRORES (ROUNDED OFF) TOWARDS THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE EXPAT RIATES OF THE COMPANY AT SINGAPORE. THIS IS NOT SUBJECTED TO TAX IN I NDIA WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE AO ALREADY GRANTED NIL T DS CERTIFICATE BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE MAJOR PORTION OF US$ 8 3,08,675.33 OUT OF GROSS PAYMENT OF US$ 4,55,033.27. FOR TH E BALANCE AMOUNT OF US$ 1,46,357.94 ASSESSEE COULD NOT FOLLOW IT UP W ITH THE AO FOR GETTING THE NIL TDS CERTIFICATE FOR THIS AMOUNT ALSO D UE TO CHANGES IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COMPANY. CONCERNED OFFICIALS HAVE LEFT THE COMPANY. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE CIT THAT THE SAID P AYMENTS ARE CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA. AS SUCH, THERE IS ALREADY AN OPINION OF AO IN EXISTENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SAID PAYMENTS AR E PRIMA-FACIE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA. THE SAME IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE AO ISSUED NIL TDS CERTIFICATES IN RESPECT OF SIMILAR PAYMENT S. CONSIDERING THE SAID FACTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIT IS NOT PROPER IN REVIEWING AND DIRECTING THE AO TO GO FOR THE FRE SH ASSESSMENT WITHOUT CRYSTALLISING ABOUT THE CHARGEABILITY OF THE SAID REC EIPTS IN INDIA. IN OUR VIEW, THE CIT FAILED TO GIVE A CLEAR FINDING TO THE FACTUAL OR LEGAL ERRORS IN THE DECISION OF THE AO IN DROPPING THE RE-O PENING OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, WE FIND THE FINDING OF CIT IN STATING THAT THE AO FAILED TO CONDUCT PROPER ENQUIRIES IS TOO GENERAL AND CASUAL. SUCH FINDINGS OF CIT WITHOUT WELL REASONED ORDER OF EACH OF THE ISSUES GIVEN ABOVE, ARE UNSUSTAINABLE. THUS, THE CIT IS PR EVENTED FROM INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, WHICH IN PRESENT CASE, IS AIMED AT CONDUCTING MERE ROVING ENQUIRIES WITHOUT SPECIF YING THE ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION OF LAW OR FACT BY THE AO. ACCORDING LY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 18 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 18 TH APRIL, 2018 9 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// SENIOR PRIVA TE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)-3, PUNE 4. CIT-3, PUNE 5. , , A BENCH PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE.