Bhansali Metal And Alloys v. Income Tax Officer-19(1)(2)

Minal V.

Parab by Minal V.

Parab Date:

2021.03.03 11:25:16 +0530 (11)-ITXA-1614-19.doc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1614 OF 2019 Bhansali Metal & Alloys ..Appellant

Versus

Income Tax Officer-19(1)(2) Mumbai ..Respondent Ms. Rutuja N. Pawar a/w Ms. Hetal Laghave, Advocates for the Appellant. Mr. Sham Walve, Advocate for the Respondent.

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

DATE : 2nd MARCH, 2021 P.C.

Heard Ms. Rutuja N. Pawar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sham Walve, 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 05.10.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "SMC" Bench, Mumbai in ITA No.4409/Mum/2018 for the assessment year 2011-12. 3.

The appeal is pending for admission.

4.

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

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 BGP.

(11)-ITXA-1614-19.doc.

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Appeal is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. 9.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.

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