JUDGMENT This batch of Tax Case (Appeals), filed at the instance of the assessee as against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, were admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law: T.C.(A)Nos.361 to 370 & 372 to 389 of 2012: "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT has exercised its power of remand judiciously and in accordance with law? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in remanding the matters back to the file of the AO even when no new materials had been presented before it and all materials were placed before the lower authorities? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in remanding the matters back to the AO without giving specific directions?" T.C.(A)Nos.223 to 250 of 2013: "1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in remanding the matter back to the assessing officer when there was no factual dispute between the parties and the CIT(A) had given a conclusive order on the entire factual matrix of the case? 2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in not recording a finding that the appellant had produced fresh material, but still remanding the appellant's cases along with the other assessees who had produced fresh material? 3. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in not deciding issues other than reinsurance premium, on which, according to the impugned order itself, there are no fresh materials produced? 4. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in remanding the matter back to the assessing officer without recording a finding on what materials were produced freshly before it?" 2. Since the issues raised in all the assessees' appeals are identical, particularly on the question of remand, it is suffice to refer the said issue by a common judgment. The common fact in all these cases is that the assessees are all insurance companies. Among the various issues raised in the course of re-assessment proceedings including the validity of such reopening, the Assessing Officer disallowed the reinsurance premium paid to Non-Resident Reinsurers on the ground that the taxes had not been withheld at source. Aggrieved by the same, the assessees canvassed this issue apart from various other issues before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by preferring appeals. Aggrieved by the same, the assessees canvassed this issue apart from various other issues before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by preferring appeals. On the question of TDS on the re-insurance premium paid to Non-Resident Reinsurers, the Commissioner rejected the contention of the assessees and confirmed the re-assessment proceedings. However, the Commissioner granted certain relief, which resulted in filing of appeals by the Revenue as well as by the assessees before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3. There were in all 56 appeals, partly by the assessee and partly by the Revenue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal pointed out that the issue raised in the appeals related to disallowance of re-insurance premium paid to Non-Resident Reinsurers by the assessees. There was also a common question as regards treating the Unexpired Premium Reserve as income. In the appeals pertaining to M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., these two issues alone arose. However, in the case of M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, apart from the above issues, there were issues like disallowance of depreciation, unexplained expenditure, unexplained investment, profit on sale of investment, etc. In the case of United India Insurance Company, there were other grounds also raised on the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. 4. After referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Private Limited V. Commissioner of Income-tax in Civil Appeal Nos.7541-7542 of 2010 dated 9.9.2010, wherein the Apex Court had considered the liability as regards the remittance to the non-resident by an Indian Company, the Tribunal held that the issue as regards the payment of reinsurance premium to nonresident reinsurance companies and TDS to be made and particularly, the issue on the place of permanent establishment are all questions that have to be considered by the Assessing Officer based on DTAA. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim under Section 40(a)(i) on the ground that there were no TDS made. The Tribunal pointed out that detailed paper-books were filed by the assessees indicating the details of reinsurance premium given to the non-resident insurance companies, profit margin of the assessee companies, explanation on the concept of unexpired risk reserve etc., apart Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements entered into between India and Switzerland and India and Japan. In addition, several other documents were also placed by the assessee. In addition, several other documents were also placed by the assessee. In paragraph 17 of the order, the Tribunal viewed that these documents were not made available to the lower authorities. The Tribunal also viewed that the recent decisions of the Court on this issue are also relevant for consideration. In this background, the Tribunal thought it fit to remand the assessment proceedings back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. 5. Considering the observation made by the Tribunal that fresh materials were placed, the assessees filed Miscellaneous Petitions under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act and pointed out that there were no fresh materials placed demanding remand; consequently, the assessees prayed for consideration of the case. The assessee also pointed out that certain issues raised were also left unconsidered by the Tribunal. 6. It is a matter of record that apart from the assessees, the Revenue also filed applications before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on similar lines and pointed out that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had not mentioned the details of fresh/new materials submitted by the assessees before it and which were not available before the Assessing Officer. In its application, the Revenue observed "Apparently all the details that were filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings were considered before finalising the assessment order". Considering the above, the Revenue prayed for setting aside the order of the Tribunal and to pass fresh order in respect of two issues, viz., Disallowance of reinsurance premium and disallowance on Reserve for Unexpired Risk, which were pointed out by the Tribunal as well as on issues, which were raised in the Revenue's appeal and not considered by the Tribunal. 7. In the light of the submissions made, the Tribunal, however, passed an order in the Miscellaneous Petitions filed by the assessees taking the view that all that the assessees had sought for was not rectification of any mistake, but an order to change the view taken by the Tribunal, which is more in the nature of review. Hence, there being no mistake apparent on the face of record, all the Miscellaneous Petitions filed by the assesses were dismissed. 8. As regards the Revenue's Miscellaneous Petitions, the Tribunal held that it had already disposed of the appeals remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer. Hence, there being no mistake apparent on the face of record, all the Miscellaneous Petitions filed by the assesses were dismissed. 8. As regards the Revenue's Miscellaneous Petitions, the Tribunal held that it had already disposed of the appeals remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer. It further observed "The files have been remitted back to the Assessing Officers not for the reason that the materials are not available on record. The common order of the Tribunal speaks the grounds on which the matters were remanded back. Now, the Revenue cannot request the Tribunal to dispose of the appeals in a particular manner. These miscellaneous petitions filed by the Revenue are frivolous. They are dismissed." 9. Evidently, the Revenue had not filed any appeal before this Court as against this order directing remand of the assessment. 10. As far as the second order dismissing the Miscellaneous Petitions is concerned, the M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited is stated to have filed Writ Petitions before this Court, which are stated to be in the stage of maintainability question, having regard to Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. 11. Learned senior counsel appearing for the assessees rightly pointed out to the Miscellaneous Petitions filed by the Revenue and submitted that when all the materials, which are necessary for deciding the issues on the need of TDS on the reinsurance paid to non-resident reinsurers, were there before the Tribunal and the materials, even according to the Revenue, were not fresh materials, but were considered by the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal had committed a serious error in ordering remand without even specifying what are the fresh documents that are filed before the Tribunal warranting remand. In the background of the admitted fact that no fresh materials were filed, the Revenue pleaded that the Tribunal should have considered the issues by itself. Quite apart, he further pointed out to various further issues in the Revenue's appeals too that the perfunctory manner of functioning by the Tribunal calls for serious view by this Court. He further submitted that it is no doubt true that after Vodafone case, Act was amended retrospectively, nevertheless, it being a legal issue, there is no bar on the part of the Tribunal itself addressing on the issue also. 12. He further submitted that it is no doubt true that after Vodafone case, Act was amended retrospectively, nevertheless, it being a legal issue, there is no bar on the part of the Tribunal itself addressing on the issue also. 12. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue, although pointed out to the Miscellaneous Petitions filed objecting to the order of remand, yet, he quickly added that considering the judicial pronouncement on the TDS provision, vis-a-vis on Non-Resident and Permanent Resident issues and the subsequent amendment to the Act on these issues, it is better that the Assessing Officer is allowed to take a fresh look into the issues on hand. 13. We may point out herein that it is not the one and only issue, which was contested by the assessees before the Tribunal. In fact, in one of this batch of appeals, the assessees have challenged the order of reopening itself on the aspect of jurisdiction. 14. We have bestowed our careful thought to the issues raised in the appeals. We find that there is absolutely no material which necessitated the remand of the case to the Assessing Officer. On the admitted factual position that the materials, which were relied on by the assessees and the Revenue, were admittedly before the Assessing Officer, who had considered the same while passing the assessment order. We found that the Tribunal had failed to exercise its jurisdiction in the manner known to law. It is one thing to say that the documents were not there before the Assessing Officer, yet, the Officer did not bestow his attention and arrived at a wrong conclusion, which may warrant, at times a remand. However, when materials, which were considered by the Officer are there before the Tribunal on the issue raised, even assuming for a moment that in the course of pendency of the appeals, amendments are effected retrospectively, touching on the very same issue in the context of the amendment provision, however, does not call for any remand, particularly for the reason that the Tribunal with all its wisdom is competent to go into the legal provision, which would govern the issue. 15. 15. On the admitted fact that the materials produced are not new and the applicability of the amended provision does not require further probing of facts, we reject the contention of the learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue that in the light of the amended provision under Section 9 of the Income Tax Act, the remand is called for. The entire issue rests on the understanding of the materials placed by the assessees on the nature of transaction and ultimately, the applicability of that provisions of the Act. This would be so not only with reference to the issue on TDS on the payment made to Non-Resident Indians, but also on other issues including those which were pointed out by the Revenue in their Miscellaneous Petitions. 16. We may point out herein that the Tribunal's view that the request of the assessees is more in the nature of the review does not rest on any justifiable ground. When there is an apparent error on the face of record of the Tribunal holding that fresh materials have been filed and both sides agree that there were no fresh materials, their request is one for rectification of the error for considering the case of the assessees as well as the Revenue on merits on the basis of materials placed before the Tribunal. Hence, we reject the line of reasoning by the Tribunal in this regard. 17. In the background of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as a fact finding authority, we feel that the Tribunal should have acted with greater circumspection to order a remand, particularly when the Revenue itself does not dispute that the materials were all those that were considered by the Assessing Officer. Remand is not a power to be exercised in a routine manner and should be used sparingly as an exception only when the facts warranted such course of action. We feel that the Tribunal should have arrived at its own conclusion on facts after due consideration of the materials before it which were no different from which was placed before the authorities below. Hence, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal in remanding the matter back to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the admitted fact that no fresh materials were placed before the Tribunal necessitating remand. 18. Hence, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal in remanding the matter back to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the admitted fact that no fresh materials were placed before the Tribunal necessitating remand. 18. We may point out that the order of the Tribunal makes no mention at all as to what were the documents filed before the Tribunal as by way of fresh document, necessitating remand. In the background of the facts pleaded and admitted by the Revenue, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the appeal to the Tribunal to bestow its attention in all sincerity to the issues raised by the Revenue as well as by the assessees in their appeals and pass orders in accordance with law. This would include consideration of the relevance of the retrospective amendment to Section 9 of the Income Tax Act after the Vodafone Case to the facts of the case. Thus taking note of the submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing for the assessees and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue, particularly on the amendment to the Act consequent on the Vodafone case, we direct the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to consider the case of the assessees afresh on the materials placed and the effect of the amended provision on the assessees' cases. It is open to the assessees to file such additional grounds on the points of law before the Tribunal for a full-fledged hearing on the issues raised. 19. Even though the Revenue had not filed appeals as against the remand order, yet, considering the appeals filed by the assessees questioning the remand even in respect of the issues raised in the Revenue's appeals, we direct the entirety of the issues covered by the Revenue's appeals as well as assessees' appeals, be considered by the Tribunal in accordance with law. The orders of the Tribunal, consequently are set aside and the matters are restored to the files of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 20. All the above Tax Case (Appeals) stand disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 21. In view of the order passed in the above Tax Case (Appeals), the petitioner in the Writ Petition is permitted to withdraw its Writ Petition filed as against the order of the Tribunal in the Miscellaneous Petitions. No costs.