9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application for voluntary retirement dated 10th December, 1992 was accepted by the employer of the assessee with effect from 31 st December, 1992 on which date the appellant/assessee was to retire voluntarily as Managing Director of the Durgapur Steel Plant The revenue was not in a position to dislodge the factual finding which was recorded by the CIT(A). However, the tribunal without appreciating the factual position erroneously reversed the order on the flimsy ground the assessee did not draw any salary even for a half day, i.e. 1st January, 1993. The tribunal missed an important fact as regards the actual date of retirement on voluntary basis. We are of the view that the order passed by the tribunal was erroneous, perverse and calls for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... salary of half day of 01.01.1993? We have heard Mr. Ananda Sen, learned standing counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr. Aryak Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent/revenue. On going through the order passed by the tribunal we are of the clear view that the order is utterly perverse, non-speaking and without taking note of the factual position which has been brought out by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) VIII, Kolkata. The short issue which arose for consideration was as to how the benefits which were paid to the appellant/assessee upon being granted the voluntary retirement from Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) has to be taxed. The assessing officer held against the assessee. The assessee preferred appeal before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2-92 and that thereafter he would take over the charge as advisor w.e.f. 1-1-93 till his superannuation on 31-12-94. Therefore the SAIL authority also correctly granted the prayer of the appellant that he would be allowed V.R. w.e.f. 1-1-93. On this point it is immaterial if the appellant requested for V.R. w.e.f. 31-12-92. What is material is that his employer granted V.R. to the appellant w.e.f. 1-1-93. It is also a matter of record that the appellant in this case handed over the charge of M.O. on 31- 12-92 and also took over the post of advisor on 1-1-93 in pursuance of order of employer dated 30-12-92. It is also important to note that only after he took over the charge as advisor the office order was issued on 1-1-93 that the offer of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the charge of advisor and handing over the charge of M.D. Therefore there cannot arise any doubt to say that there was a corporate veil in the whole matter and that he retired as M.D. I am of the view that on this issue the argument of the A.O. is misdirected because how could the appellant be allowed to retire voluntarily as M.D. when the A.P. knew fully well that in SAIL there was no scheme of V.R. for the Directors or the M.Ds. Then how could the appellant be held to have retired voluntarily as M.D. and how could the appellant be paid voluntary retirement as well? This obviously was not possible at all in the case of a Public Sector Undertaking. He could have been given V.R. benefit only if he would have retired in any capacity oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
