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

(10)-ITXA-1187-13.doc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1187 OF 2013 Mr. Sasikumar V Pillai ..Appellant

Versus

Commissioner of Income Tax-23 ..Respondent Ms. Rutuja Pawar, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Arvind Pinto, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.

DATE : 12th MARCH, 2021 P.C.

Heard Ms. Rutuja Pawar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arvind Pinto, learned counsel for the respondent. 2.

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee as the appellant under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 07.11.2012 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 dated 01.04.2015 on the substantial questions of law framed in the said order. 4.

Today the appeal is before us on a praecipe filed by learned counsel for the appellant.

BGP.

(10)-ITXA-1187-13.doc.

5.

It is stated that Parliament has enacted the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 providing for a scheme for resolution of tax disputes. In terms thereof, appellant has filed declaration under section 3 before the designated authority. Designated authority has issued certificate under section 5(1). For passing of the final order under section 5(2), appellant is required to withdraw the appeal under section 4(3) and to furnish proof of withdrawal along 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 the prayer 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Appeal is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. 9.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.

Digitally signed by Balaji G.

Panchal Date:

2021.03.15 11:01:14 +0530 Balaji G.

Panchal MILIND N. JADHAV, J UJJAL BHUYAN, J BGP.