ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Moradabad v. M/s Prathma Bank
Income Tax Appeal No. 34 of 2020 ·
Supplied court order; no reported citation stated
Revenue appeal dismissed as infructuous following the recorded Vivad Se Vishwas settlement and certificate.
Division Bench · Naheed Ara Moonis · Saumitra Dayal Singh
1. Facts of the case
In Income Tax Appeal No. 34 of 2020, Revenue stated that the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Hon’ble Court heard counsel for both sides. The supplied order states no assessment year, PAN, tax amount or substantive tax issue.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
In view of the settlement reached and certificate having been granted, as recorded in the source, the Hon’ble Court treated Revenue’s appeal as having become infructuous. No independent certificate or payment record is reproduced in the supplied order.
3. Judicial decision
The appeal was dismissed as infructuous in view of the statement recorded.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
The Revenue appeal ceased to require adjudication. This is not a merits affirmation of the underlying tax position, and it is not an appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
Distinguish the source’s recorded settlement/certificate from independently checking every settlement document. Prathma/Prathama appeals 9/2018,34/2020 and 30/2019 are separate dockets with distinct originals despite the same date and similar text. No current-law entitlement or later compliance is cleared.
Source and verification
Complete supplied one-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: cd085139112cf0c202abef6125a7daf12dba18cb1aa4f3a562852a28692e3790
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.