Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Ii, Pune v. M/S. Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd

(7)-ITXA-391-12.doc. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.391 OF 2012 Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Pune Versus M/s. Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. ..Appellant ..Respondent Mr. Sham Walve, Advocate for the Appellant.Mr. S. P. Mehta a/w Ms. A. Vissanji, for the Respondent. CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 12[th] MARCH, 2021 P.C. Heard Mr. Sham Walve, learned counsel for the appellant andMr. S. P. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue as the appellantunder section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated06.04.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Punein ITA No.965/966/PN/2009 for the assessment year 2004-05. 3. The appeal was admitted by this Court by order dated13.03.2013 on the substantial question of law framed in the said order. 4. Today the appeal is before us on a praecipe filed by learnedcounsel for the appellant. 1 of 2 Digitallysigned byBalajiG.Balaji G.PanchalDate:Panchal2021.03.1511:02:26+0530 (7)-ITXA-391-12.doc. 5. It is stated that Parliament has enacted the Direct Tax Vivad seVishwas Act, 2020 providing for a scheme for resolution of tax disputes. Interms thereof, respondent assessee has opted for dispute resolution underthe scheme and filed declaration under section 3 before the designatedauthority. Designated authority has issued certificate under section 5(1).In terms of the scheme, the appeal is required to be withdrawn. 6. Since appeal is by the revenue, prayer has been made by Mr.Sham Walve to withdraw the appeal in terms of the scheme. 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 Appeal is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. 9.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