Mahindra Holdigs Limited v. Income Tax Officer 2(2)(3

(15)-ITXA-114-17.doc. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.114 OF 2017 Mahindra Holdigs Limited Versus Income Tax Officer 2(2)(3) ..Appellant ..Respondent Mr. Sanjiv Shah, Advocate for the Appellant.Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 17[th] FEBRUARY, 2021 P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Sanjiv Shah, learned counsel for the appellant andMr. Suresh Kumar, 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 dated24.05.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench,Mumbai in ITA No.2832/Mum/2012 for the assessment year 2008-09. 3. The appeal was admitted by this Court by order dated12.03.2019 on the substantial question of law framed in the said order. 4. The appeal is before us today on praecipe filed by learnedcounsel for the appellant. BGP. 1 of 2 Digitallysigned byBalajiG.PanchalBalaji G.PanchalDate:2021.02.1811:14:06+0530 (15)-ITXA-114-17.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 issued certificate under section5(1) determining the amount refundable to the appellant. For passing ofthe final order under section 5(2), appellant is required to withdraw theappeal under section 4(3) and to furnish proof of withdrawal along withintimation of payment, if any, to the designated authority. Hence, prayerfor 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 Appeal is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. 9.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 BGP. 2 of 2