M/S GOODPOINT STOCKIST PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs ITO, WARD-11(4), KOLKATA

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”

Before: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Garg

order

: August 12, 2021 ORDER

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 11.03.2019 of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as ‘PCIT’).

As pointed out by the Registry, the appeal is time-barred by 147 days. Further, the ld. DR has brought our attention to Form No.36 i.e. original form of appeal and submitted that the assessee originally had filed appeal against the ITO, Ward-11(4), Kolkata and further that the assessee originally assailed the assessment order dated 30.12.2019 passed u/s 144 r.w.s 263 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter the “Act”). However, the assessee subsequently filed revised form of appeal whereby the name of the respondent has been changed as PCIT-4, Kolkata. 3. The ld. AR, in this respect, has submitted that in fact the assessee did not receive the order dated 11.03.2019 passed by the ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act. That the assessee came to know about the order passed u/s 263 only on the receipt of assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act pursuant to the directions given by the ld. PCIT vide revision order dated 11.03.2019. He has further submitted that due to an inadvertent

Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Goodpoint Stockist Pvt. Ltd mistake, the assessee arrayed ITO, Ward-11(4) as a Respondent whereas the assessee, in fact, wanted to assail the order of the PCIT dated 11.03.2019. Therefore, the appeal Form No.36 was revised to implead the PCIT as respondent. 4. However, the ld. DR pointed out that the assessee even revised Form No.36 through grounds of appeal has only assailed the assessment order dated 30.12.2019. He has further submitted that 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.

5. The ld. AR, at this stage, has submitted that the above discrepancy/error has occurred due to inadvertent mistake and that the assessee may be allowed to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to file afresh and that the time consumed in prosecuting the present appeal may not be taken into consideration for limitation purposes. The ld. DR has not objected the same.

6. In view of this, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh against the appropriate party.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.

7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order is pronounced in the open court on 12.08.2021.

Sd/- Sd/- [P. M. Jagtap] [Sanjay Garg] Vice-President Judicial Member Dated: 12.08.2021. RS

Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Goodpoint Stockist Pvt. Ltd Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. M/s Goodpoint Stockist Pvt. Ltd 2. PCIT-4, Kolkata 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

M/S GOODPOINT STOCKIST PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-11(4), KOLKATA