ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Lalit Kumar Agrawal v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Two Others
Writ Tax No. 1557 of 2018 ·
Supplied court order; no reported citation stated
Writ dismissed as infructuous after counsel stated that the demand had been paid.
Division Bench · Bharati Sapru · Vivek Varma
1. Facts of the case
Lalit Kumar Agrawal’s counsel stated that the demand had been paid and the matter had become infructuous by efflux of time. Respondent counsel was present. The amount, assessment year and payment documents are not reproduced.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court disposed of the writ on counsel’s statement. It did not determine the demand’s substantive validity, quantify payment or decide a refund claim.
3. Judicial decision
Writ Tax No. 1557 of 2018 was dismissed as having become infructuous.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
The writ ended procedurally. Payment is recorded as counsel’s statement; this note does not independently certify compliance, extinguishment of all liabilities or entitlement to refund.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
Read the demand, payment record and later proceedings before drawing tax consequences. An infructuous disposal following reported payment is not a merits ruling validating the demand or rejecting every possible further remedy.
Source and verification
Complete supplied one-page order read and visually inspected. Exact original SHA-256 and complete text match the source review packet. Assessment year and PAN are not stated. Later proceedings and current law have not been cleared.
Source SHA-256: 0a8c41e858c887f6594a1340b74be5c18f5a308ceedc9d425c13b0cb6ff59b62
Only provisions expressly identified in this order are recorded. No substantive tax merits or current statutory equivalence is inferred.
Source checked 2026-10-19. Later proceedings, compliance and current precedential treatment have not been comprehensively verified.
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
This AKHB research note was prepared with AI assistance from an identified primary report. Independent human review is not represented.
General legal and tax research only; not legal or tax advice. Verify the complete judgment, applicable statutory version and subsequent treatment before reliance. The AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not the Court’s holding. No current-law clearance is claimed.