ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Prem Piyara Suri v. Union of India through Income Tax Officer and another
Application U/S 482 No. 8859 of 2003 ·
2023:AHC:145224
The petition was dismissed as infructuous.
Single Judge · Umesh Chandra Sharma
1. Facts of the case
Applicant counsel accepted that the matter had become infructuous because the case had been compounded and the concerned Magistrate had passed an order on 1 March 2008.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court acted on that recorded statement rather than undertaking a fresh determination of the underlying allegations.
3. Judicial decision
The petition was dismissed as infructuous.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
The application ended procedurally in view of the recorded compounding and Magistrate’s order.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
Compounding was reported as an earlier event; the High Court did not newly compound the case in this order. No offence provision, compounding amount or assessment year is supplied. Preserve the 2008 Magistrate’s order date separately from this 20 July 2023 disposal.
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: 283496540ade283975bacd6ab7b40bb03de336178c58a219b16df839c5338c2a
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.