ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Amitabh Tayal v. Commissioner of Income Tax; Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad v. Amitabh Tayal
Income Tax Appeal No. 249 of 2009 with Income Tax Appeal No. 66 of 2010 ·
Supplied court order; no reported citation stated
Unstayed Tribunal recall left the Tribunal appeal pending for the recorded Vivad Se Vishwas certificate; High Court appeals ended by withdrawal and infructuous dismissal.
Division Bench · Naheed Ara Moonis · Saumitra Dayal Singh
1. Facts of the case
The Tribunal dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal 311/A/2008 on 16 March 2009. The taxpayer brought High Court appeal 249/2009 and also filed MA 14/A/2009. The Tribunal allowed that MA on 11 September 2009; Revenue challenged that order in appeal 66/2010. Neither High Court appeal had an operative stay. The common order records as an admitted fact that a Form-3 certificate dated 3 March 2021 under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 had been issued and annexed to the withdrawal application.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Hon’ble Court held that the Principal Commissioner rightly treated Tribunal appeal 311/A/2008 as pending: MA 14/A/2009 stood allowed, the original Tribunal dismissal had been set aside, and no stay operated against the MA order. The uncertain future outcome of Revenue’s challenge did not change that operative position when the certificate was issued. This reasoning is confined to the recorded facts and unstayed order.
3. Judicial decision
Paragraph 8 dismisses the taxpayer’s Income Tax Appeal 249/2009 as withdrawn and Revenue’s Income Tax Appeal 66/2010 as infructuous.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
The two High Court appeals ended by different procedural routes in view of the recorded certificate and operative Tribunal position. The Hon’ble Court did not decide the underlying assessment merits or certify final payment compliance in this supplied order.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
Check the actual MA order, any stay, certificate and relevant dates when assessing pendency in a comparable historical settlement matter. A pending challenge alone was not treated as undoing the operative, unstayed MA order on these facts. The short companion in appeal 66/2010 adds no separate ratio; use this common order for the reasoning.
Source and verification
Complete supplied two-page original read and visually inspected. Exact original SHA-256 independently verified and full text compared with the preserved source review. No assessment year or PAN is stated. Subsequent treatment and current law have not been comprehensively verified.
Source SHA-256: afc81455a3e3ba533d4b43e1d032f16e97a4dc0a00ee0855e4d61605c4fc1540
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.