IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E (FRIDAY) BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL M.A. NO. 521(DEL)/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 321(DEL)/2007) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 SHRI RAVI GARG, INCOME-TAX OFFICER, A-302, PROGRESSIVE SIGNATURE VS. W ARD 47(2), NEW DELHI. PLOT NOS. 53 & 54, SECTOR-6, GHANSOLI, NAVI MUMBAI-400701. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI ANIL SHARMA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SMT. SRUJANI MOHANTY, SR. DR ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL ;AM IN THIS CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAD PASSED THE ORDER O N 13.05.2010, IN WHICH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ON 6.10.2010 MENTIONING THAT SOME MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RE CORD HAVE OCCURRED IN THE ORDER. THE ALLEGED MISTAKES, DISCUSSED BY THE LD . COUNSEL BEFORE US ON THIS APPLICATION ARE DISPOSED OFF AS UNDER: 2. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT IN PARAGRAPH NO. 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE MATTER REGARDING TAXATION OF GRATUITY WAS RE STORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DE-NOVO EXAMINATION. THIS ISSUE WAS RAISED BY NEITHER PARTY. THEREFORE, THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE TRIB UNAL MAY BE DELETED. MA.NO.521(DEL)/2010 2 3. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THIS PARAGRAPH, IT IS SEEN THAT THIS MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO BY THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS). THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BEFORE US. THE POSITION OF LAW IS THA T THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT BEEN EMPOWERED TO RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FI LE OF THE AO. THIS POSITION OF LAW HAS ALSO NOT BEEN DISPUTED BEFORE US. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE A O BY US ONLY TO FILL THE LEGAL LACUNA IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WITHOU T MAKING ANY COMMENT ON THE MERITS. THE TRIBUNAL IS EMPOWERED TO DO SO EVEN IN ABSENCE OF ANY ARGUMENT FROM EITHER SIDE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT T HINK IT NECESSARY TO MAKE ANY AMENDMENT IN THIS PART OF THE ORDER. 4. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN PARAGRAPH NO. 5 .1, IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE AMOUNTS MENTIONED IN THE ANNEXURE TO THE S EVERANCE PLAN DIFFER FROM THE AMOUNTS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT AND THE A PPELLATE ORDER, EXCEPT FOR THE GRATUITY AMOUNT. THE IMPORT OF VARIOUS PAY MENTS HAS ALSO NOT BEEN EXPLAINED TO US BY THE LD. COUNSEL. THEREFORE, TH E WHOLE OF THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDIC ATION BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER. HE WAS ALSO DIRECTED TO RECONCILE THE AMOU NTS. THE CASE OF THE LD. COUNSEL IS THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE TW O AMOUNTS. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THIS FACT MAY BE MENTIONED IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE CASE OF THE LD. DR IS THAT THE FACTUAL POSIT ION CAN BE EXAMINED BY THE AO WHILE MAKING DE-NOVO ORDER. HAVING CONSIDE RED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND THAT ANY AMENDMENT I S REQUIRED IN THIS PART OF THE ORDER ALSO FOR THE REASON THAT THE AO HAS BE EN DIRECTED TO RECONCILE THE AMOUNTS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT AND APPELLATE ORDER WITH THE AMOUNTS MENTIONED IN THE SEVERANCE LETTER. IF THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE, THIS PART OF THE DIRECTION WILL BECOME REDUNDANT. MA.NO.521(DEL)/2010 3 4.1 IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, IT IS NOT NECESSAR Y FOR US TO GO INTO THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL REGARDING SC OPE OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPLICATION IS TREATED AS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 3 MAY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (C.L. SETHI) (K.G. BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF ORDER: 13TH MAY, 2011. SP SATIA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARD SHRI RAVI GARG, NAVI MUMBAI. ITO, WARD 47(2), NEW DELHI. CIT CIT(A) THE DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR .