Mauli Developers v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Pune

(20)-ITXA-787-18.doc. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.787 OF 2018 Mauli Developers ..AppellantVersus Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Pune ..Respondent Mr. Soumitra Gokhale i/by Mr. Rohan Deshpande, Advocate for theAppellant.Mr. Sham Walve, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 8[th] MARCH, 2021 P.C. Heard Mr. Soumitra Gokhale, learned counsel for theappellant and Mr. Sham Walve, 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 dated05.07.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench,Mumbai in ITA No.2145/Pun/2016 for the assessment year 2010-11. 3. The appeal is pending for admission 4. Today the appeal is before us on a praecipe filed by learnedcounsel for the appellant. 1 of 2 Digitallysigned byBalajiBalaji G.PanchalG.Date:Panchal2021.03.1212:21:44+0530 (20)-ITXA-787-18.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) on 04.01.2021. For passing of the final order under section5(2), appellant is required to withdraw the appeal under section 4(3) and tofurnish proof of withdrawal along with intimation of payment, if any, to thedesignated authority. Hence, prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent 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 Appeal is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. 9.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