ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Ramesh Kumar Srivastava v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Another
Writ Tax No. 546 of 2017 ·
Supplied court order; no reported citation stated
Dismissal for want of prosecution; interim order, if any, vacated.
Division Bench · Naheed Ara Moonis · Saumitra Dayal Singh
1. Facts of the case
Writ Tax No. 546 of 2017: Petitioner’s counsel stated that he had no instructions. Counsel for the respondent was present.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court proceeded on the stated non-prosecution ground. The supplied order gives no substantive assessment reasoning or tax merits finding.
3. Judicial decision
The writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. The interim order, if any, stood vacated.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
The proceeding ended for non-prosecution and any interim protection was vacated. The source does not establish a later restoration or any adjudication of tax liability.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
Distinguish procedural termination from rejection of the tax claim on merits. Any later reliance requires checking restoration proceedings and the effect of the express vacation of interim relief; do not infer finality of the underlying assessment.
Source and verification
Complete supplied one-page original read locally. Exact SHA-256 matches the saved source review and cloud individual-original verification. The cloud preparation visually inspected all ten original pages; this local note is checked separately. No PAN is stated. Later treatment and current law are not cleared.
Source SHA-256: ffbfad49ca873a3f8848767a8fa262553f7325a01029fd60891e331523f4a1d3
Only provisions expressly identified in this order are recorded. No current monetary threshold or current statutory equivalence is inferred.
Source checked 2026-10-19. Later proceedings 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.