Dr Dinesh Jain v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii(2) Mumbai

by Minal V.

Parab Date: 2021.01.28 11:41:18 +0530 Minal V.

Parab 16_ITXA_136_14.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.136 OF 2014 Dr. Dinesh Jain ...

Appellant Vs.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 11(2), Mumbai... Respondent Mr. Sameer Dalal for Appellant.

Mr. Arvind Pinto for Respondent.

CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.

DATE :

JANUARY 27, 2021 P.C. :

Heard Mr. Sameer Dalal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arvind Pinto, learned standing counsel revenue for the respondent. 2.

This appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 10.04.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in I.T.A. No.936/Mum/2011 for the assessment year 2007-08. 3.

The appeal was admitted by this Court on 24.03.2014 on the substantial questions of law framed in the said order. 4.

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

5.

It is submitted that Parliament has enacted the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (briefly 'the Act' hereinafter) providing for a scheme for resolution of tax disputes. In terms of the said scheme, appellant has filed a declaration under section 3 thereof before the Designated Authority which has thereafter issued a certificate under section 5(1) of the said Act determining the refund payable. However, for passing of the 1/2

16_ITXA_136_14.doc final order under section 5(2) of the said Act, appellant is required to withdraw the appeal in terms of section 4(3) thereof. Hence, the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal.

6.

Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to the prayer made for withdrawal of the appeal.

7.

Considering the above, we allow the appellant to withdraw the appeal.

8.

Appeal is accordingly disposed of on withdrawal. 9.

Refund as per Rules.

(MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.) Minal Parab 2/2