Digitally Signed Minal By Minal V.parab v. Itxa-1318-13.Doc_

(7)-ITXA-1318-13.doc. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1318 OF 2013 Sonrise Tea Processing Company Pvt. Ltd. ..AppellantVersus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Kolhapur..Respondent ..Respondent Mr. Kumar Umaji Kale, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Ashok Kotangle h/f Mr. N. N. Singh, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 2[nd] MARCH, 2021 P.C. Heard Mr. Kumar Umaji Kale, learned counsel for theappellant and Mr. Ashok Kotangle, 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 dated31.10.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Punein ITA No.10/PN/2008 for the assessment year 2002-03. 3. The appeal was admitted by this Court by order dated03.07.2014 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 (7)-ITXA-1318-13.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, 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 respondents 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 Appeal is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. 9.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