Maharukh Murad Oomrigar v. Income Tax Officer - 21(1)(3) And Anr

Amberkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 654 OF 2012 Maharukh Murad Oomrigar .. Appellant Versus Income Tax Officer - 21(1)(3) and Anr. .. Respondents ................... Ms. Neha Paranjape i/by Jitendra Singh for the Appellant. Mr. Ashok Kotangale for the Respondents. ................... MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : MARCH 09, 2021. P.C.: Heard Ms. Neha Paranjape, learned counsel for the appellantand Mr. Ashok Kotangale, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961has been preferred by the assessee as the appellant against the orderpassed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai for theassessment year 2006-07. 3. The appeal was admitted by this Court on 19.03.2013 on thesubstantial questions of law framed in the said order. 4. Today the appeal is before us on a praecipe filed by learnedcounsel for the appellant. 5. It is submitted that Parliament has enacted the Direct Tax Vivadse Vishwas Act, 2020 (briefly 'the Act' hereinafter) providing for a scheme for resolution of tax disputes. Appellant has filed a declarationunder section 3 of the said Act before the Designated Authority whichhad thereafter issued a certificate under section 5(1) of the said Actdetermining the amount refundable to the appellant. However, forpassing of the final order under section 5(2) of the said Act, appellantis required to withdraw the appeal in terms of section 4(3) thereof.Hence, the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to theprayer made for withdrawal of the appeal. 7. Considering the above, we allow the appellant to withdraw theappeal. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as withdrawn. 8. Refund as per Rules. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [ UJJAL BHUYAN, J. ] RavindraDigitally signedby Ravindra M.M.AmberkarAmberkarDate: 2021.03.0916:19:50 +0530