ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Commissioner of Income Tax, Faizabad v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal through its Registrar and another
Writ-C No. 1002685 of 2011 ·
Supplied court order; no reported citation stated
The writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. Any interim order stood vacated.
Single Judge · Pankaj Bhatia
1. Facts of the case
No one appeared even when the matter was called again.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court disposed of the proceeding for non-prosecution; the supplied order does not address the underlying tax controversy.
3. Judicial decision
The writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. Any interim order stood vacated.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
The proceeding ended for non-prosecution, with conditional vacation of any interim protection.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
Keep the qualification “if any” attached to the interim order. The source does not establish that interim relief existed, that tax was paid or that the underlying claim was rejected on merits.
Source and verification
Complete supplied one-page original read and visually inspected; original PDF bytes verified by SHA-256. Only source-identified provisions and assessment years are recorded. No PAN is stated. Subsequent treatment and current law have not been cleared.
Source SHA-256: f3f6fb2daa67ff0778d8d01a4aa8b85c7b44810a76307fb601ea85f3c958a6f6
Only source-identified provisions are recorded. No current monetary threshold, current statutory equivalence or 2025 Act applicability is inferred.
Source checked 2026-10-20. Subsequent 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.