Mr. Sasikumar V Pillai v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-23

(10)-ITXA-1187-13.doc. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1187 OF 2013 Mr. Sasikumar V Pillai Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-23 ..Appellant ..Respondent Ms. Rutuja Pawar, Advocate for the Appellant.Mr. Arvind Pinto, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 12[th] MARCH, 2021 P.C. Heard Ms. Rutuja Pawar, learned counsel for the appellant andMr. Arvind Pinto, 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 dated07.11.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” Bench,Mumbai in ITA No.259/Mum/2011 for the assessment year 2007-08. 3. The appeal was admitted by this Court by order dated01.04.2015 on the substantial questions 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 Digitallysigned byBalajiG.Balaji G.PanchalDate:Panchal2021.03.1511:01:14+0530 (10)-ITXA-1187-13.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 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 Appeal is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. 9.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