Digitally Signed Minal By Minal V.parab v. Itxa-187-12.Doc_

(6)-ITXA-187-12.doc. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.187 OF 2012 Sumitomo Chemical India Private Limited..AppellantVersus Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)Range 3(3) Mumbai & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Atul Jasani, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Sham Walve h/f Mr. P. C. Chhotaray, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 2[nd] MARCH, 2021 P.C. Heard Mr. Atul Jasani, learned counsel for the appellant andMr. Sham Walve, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee as the appellantunder section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated28.10.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” Bench,Mumbai in ITA No.6222/Mum/2009 for the assessment year 2003-04. 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 se 1 of 2 (6)-ITXA-187-12.doc. Vishwas Act, 2020 providing for a scheme for resolution of tax disputes. Interms thereof, appellant has filed declaration under section 3 on 11.11.2020before the designated authority. Designated authority has issued certificateunder section 5(1) on 19.01.2021 determining the amount refundable. Forpassing of the final order under section 5(2), appellant is required towithdraw the appeal under section 4(3) and to furnish proof of withdrawalalong with intimation of payment, if any, to the designated authority.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 Appeal is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. 9.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