ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Divya Nand Vidya Mandir PG College through its Authorised Signatory v. Income Tax Officer-3(2), Hardoi
Writ Tax No. 9 of 2022 ·
Supplied court order; no reported citation stated
The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.
Division Bench · Rajesh Bindal · Rajnish Kumar
1. Facts of the case
No one appeared for the petitioner. Department counsel submitted that the prayer in the petition had been rendered infructuous.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court observed that the petitioner apparently had lost interest, probably explaining the absence, and disposed of the petition on the infructuousness ground.
3. Judicial decision
The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
The proceeding ended without determination of the underlying tax merits.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
The stated disposition is infructuous, despite the absence of petitioner counsel. No event causing infructuousness, assessment year or amount is stated. Preserve the separate petitioners and Writ Tax Nos. 9 and 81 of 2022; similar wording does not make these the same case.
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: 989c47aa3ff4e334cc51bebb35329703bfaedce6f0551b30e977b4b07789b137
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.