Rajesh Builder v. D.c.i.t., Range-22(2

(6)-ITXA-1317-11.doc. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1317 OF 2011 Rajesh Builder ..Appellant Versus D.C.I.T., Range-22(2) ..Respondent Ms. Namrata Kasale i/by Sameer Dalal, for the Appellant.Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 12[th] MARCH, 2021 P.C. Heard Ms. Namrata Kasale, learned counsel for the appellantand Mr. 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 dated13.09.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench,Mumbai in ITA No.3980/Mum/2009 for the assessment year 2005-06. 3. The appeal was admitted by this Court by order dated11.02.2013 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 Balaji G.Panchal Digitally signed byBalaji G. PanchalDate: 2021.03.1511:10:07 +0530 (6)-ITXA-1317-11.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 01.02.2021 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 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 Appeal is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. 9.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