2021 (8) TMI 1411 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal against appropriate party - Revised appeal substituting the name of the parties or grounds of appeal - assessee originally had filed appeal against the ITO, Ward-11(4), Kolkata passed u/s 144 r.w.s 263 and assessee subsequently filed revised form of appeal whereby the name of the respondent has been changed as PCIT-4, Kolkata - DR pointed out that the assessee even revised Form No.36 through grounds of appeal has only assailed the assessment order and the assessee by way of revised appeal form cannot change the nature of the appeal in toto by not only substituting the name of the parties but also grounds of appeal - HELD THAT - Appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh against the appropriate party. The time consumed in prosecuting the present appeal i.e. from the date of filing of the present appeal till receiving of the copy of this order will not be taken into consideration for the purpose of limitation period. However, the assessee will be liable to explain about the delay period, if any, in filing the appeal minus time period consumed in prosecuting the present appeal as observed above. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

Summary

Issues:
1. Time-barred appeal due to delay in filing.
2. Discrepancy in the appeal form regarding the respondent's name.
3. Request for withdrawal of the appeal with liberty to file afresh.

Analysis:
1. The appeal in question was found to be time-barred by 147 days, as highlighted by the Registry. The original appeal was filed against the ITO, Ward-11(4), Kolkata, but later revised to name the PCIT-4, Kolkata as the respondent. The appellant argued that they were unaware of the order passed by the PCIT under section 263 of the Income Tax Act until they received the assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 263. The appellant sought to explain the delay by claiming inadvertent mistakes in the appeal filing process.

2. The discrepancy in the appeal form, where the respondent's name was changed from ITO to PCIT, raised concerns. The appellant's representative acknowledged the error and requested to withdraw the present appeal with the liberty to file afresh against the appropriate party. The appellant's grounds of appeal were also questioned, as they only challenged the assessment order dated 30.12.2019, regardless of the change in respondent's name.

3. The appellant's representative sought permission to withdraw the appeal due to the inadvertent mistake in naming the respondent. It was proposed that the time spent in prosecuting the present appeal should not count towards the limitation period for filing a fresh appeal. The appellant's request for withdrawal was not opposed by the Departmental Representative. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the appellant granted liberty to file a fresh appeal against the correct party. The time spent on the present appeal was excluded from the limitation period calculation, subject to the appellant providing explanations for any remaining delay in filing the new appeal.