Bhansali Metal & Alloys v. Income Tax Officer-19(1)(2) Mumbai

(11)-ITXA-1614-19.doc. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1614 OF 2019 Bhansali Metal & Alloys Versus Income Tax Officer-19(1)(2) Mumbai ..Appellant ..Respondent Ms. Rutuja N. Pawar a/w Ms. Hetal Laghave, Advocates for the Appellant.Mr. Sham Walve, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 2[nd] MARCH, 2021 P.C. Heard Ms. Rutuja N. Pawar, learned counsel for the appellantand Mr. Sham Walve, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee as the appellantunder section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated05.10.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench,Mumbai in ITA No.4409/Mum/2018 for the assessment year 2011-12. 3. The appeal is pending for admission. 4. Today the appeal is before us on a praecipe filed by learnedcounsel for the appellant. 5. It is stated that Parliament has enacted the Direct Tax Vivad seVishwas Act, 2020 providing for a scheme for resolution of tax disputes. In BGP. 1 of 2 (11)-ITXA-1614-19.doc. terms thereof, appellant has filed declaration under section 3 before thedesignated authority. Designated authority has issued certificate undersection 5(1). For passing of the final order under section 5(2), appellant isrequired to withdraw the appeal under section 4(3) and to furnish proof ofwithdrawal along with intimation of payment, if any, to the designatedauthority. Hence, prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to theprayer made. 7. Having regard to the above, we allow withdrawal of the appeal. 8. Appeal is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. 9. Refund as per rules. MILIND N. JADHAV, J UJJAL BHUYAN, J 2 of 2