Appeal Withdrawn Due to Naming Error; Permission Granted to File Against Correct Party with Adjusted Time Limits.

The ITAT dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the appellant's inadvertent error in naming the respondent. The appellant was granted permission to file a fresh appeal against the correct party, PCIT-4, Kolkata. The time spent on the current appeal was excluded from the limitation period, contingent upon the appellant justifying any additional delay in the new filing. The Departmental Representative did not oppose this withdrawal, facilitating the appellant's request for liberty to rectify the procedural error.

---

---

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 Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the appellant granted liberty to file a fresh appeal against the correct party.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.

---