TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 1537
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n: i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and had material to hold that the assessee retired only as Managing Director of SAIL on 31.12.1992 and further how a person will appeal for retirement from the post for which he has not worked in spite of the admitted fact that letter of acceptance of VRS was issued by SAIL on 01.01.1993 after the assessee joined as an Advisor on 01.01.1993 and on the same day he opted for VRS in the capacity of his present post of Advisor? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that when the assessee did not draw any salary even for half a day for working as an Advisor, there is no question....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st say that I cannot agree with him. The A.O. has not been able to understand the fact properly and at certain places his arguments are also in variance at each other. From the copies of orders and documents produced before me it is clear that the appellant applied for V.R. on 18-12-92. It is important to note that on that date the appellant was holding the charge of M.D. So it was only natural on his part to write such letter to the employer only in his capacity as M.D. There is nothing wrong in that. What is important is that he knew full well by that time that he could not work in that capacity beyond 31-12-92 because he would attain the age of 58 years on that date. It is also a fact that he was also aware while writing such application....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as advisor. It is, therefore, immaterial if he has not drawn the salary of half a day as mentioned by the A.O. In fact it is not the business of the A.O. to see whether the appellant was paid or not. The fact remains that if he was not paid the amount would still be due to be paid to him. The copies of office records produced show that the appellant took over the charge as advisor on 1-1-93 and then he was allowed V.R. in that capacity on 1-1-93. If under the circumstances in the voucher for payment of P.F. accumulation the V.R. date is noted as 31-12-92 and not as 1-1-93 and his designation is noted as M.D. and not as advisor there is no doubt that in fact it was a clerical mistake. It is important to note that in this case the office orde....