Hiren N. Dharamshi v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd-Ii), Central Rg-7(Dy.Cit Cc-4(4)), Mumbai

Priya Soparkar 27 itxa 1686-17-os IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1686 OF 2017 Hiren N. Dharamshi ... Appellant V/s.

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD-II), Mumbai.

... Respondent --- Ms.Aasifa Khan, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent. --- CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.

DATE : FEBRUARY 15, 2021.

P.C.:- Heard Ms.Aasifa Khan, learned counsel for the appellant; and Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned standing counsel, revenue for the respondent.

2.

This appeal has been preferred under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 7th April, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "J" Bench, Mumbai in IT (SS) No.02/Mum/2015 for the block period 1st April, 1988 to 8th August, 1998.

3.

The appeal is pending for admission.

4.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the pendency of the appeal Parliament has enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 providing for a scheme for resolution of tax disputes. Appellant had filed a declaration under section 3 of the said Act before the Designated Authority which Authority has issued certificate under section 5(1) on 28th

Priya Soparkar 27 itxa 1686-17-os December, 2020 determining the amount of tax payable by the appellant which is Rs.4,59,474/-. For passing of final order under section 5(2) of the said Act, appellant is required to withdraw the appeal under section 4(3). Hence, the prayer for withdrawal. 5.

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

6.

In view thereof, we allow the prayer for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal is disposed of on withdrawal. 7.

Refund of court fee as per rules.

(MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.) ....