GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,DMD ADVOCATES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AIR INDIA BUILDING

Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that while e-filing appeal against the impugned order of ld CIT(A), a filing appeal against the impugned order of ld CIT(A), a filing appeal against the impugned order of ld CIT(A), a physical copy of the same was also filed , which has been physical copy of the same was also filed , which has been physical copy of the same was also filed , which has been inadvertently registered separately by the Registry , which being inadvertently registered separately by the Registry inadvertently registered separately by the Registry duplicate , the assessee sought to withdraw the same , the assessee sought to withdraw the same. After , the assessee sought to withdraw the same verification, the present appeal is found to be duplicate, therefore, verification, the present appeal is found to be duplicate, therefore, verification, the present appeal is found to be duplicate, therefore, the assessee is allowed to withdraw the same, and hence this the assessee is allowed to withdraw the same, and hence this the assessee is allowed to withdraw the same, and hence this appeal is dismissed as infructuous. as infructuous.

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. assessee is dismissed.