Tribunal held that the AO had made due enquiries into the nature and mode of receipt of foreign assignment allowance as also about its taxability in India. The AO had also obtained declaration from the employer to the effect that the allowance in question was paid in relation to services rendered in Switzerland. The AO had also obtained requisite documentary evidence in support of fact that the applicable taxes on such allowance was paid in Switzerland. After examining the specific details furnished by the assessee, the AO did not find any fault with the claim of the assessee that the foreign assignment allowance was not taxable in India.  Accordingly the Tribunal held that  not only did the AO enquire into the issue of taxability of foreign assignment allowance but had consciously applied his mind to the facts made available before him and adopted the view permissible in law.  Accordingly the assessment order did not suffer from the error of non-enquiry or non-application of mind or assumption of wrong facts.  Tribunal also held that show cause notice had proceeded on assumption of incorrect facts and wrong interpretation of applicable legal provisions. It was also established before the  CIT that before completion of assessment, the AO had indeed made enquiries into the foreign assignment allowance and after being satisfied about its non-taxability, the order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed. On receipt of these objections, though the ld. CIT did not agree with the submissions, we find that ultimately the reasons on which the ld. CIT proceeded to pass the order did not contain any substantive legal or factual material by which he was able to prove that the said explanations suffered from any infirmity. Instead we note that the ld. CIT ultimately merely set aside the assessment order directing AO to pass the order afresh in accordance with law which in our opinion was nothing but giving the AO second innings without establishing that the AO’s order was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Accordingly the  revision order was quashed.(AY. 2014-15)