ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Chandan Health Care Ltd., Lucknow and others v. Union of India through Sangita Sinha, Income Tax, Lucknow
Application U/S 482 No. 4334 of 2013 ·
Supplied court order; no reported citation stated
The application was dismissed for want of prosecution. Any interim order stood discharged.
Single Judge · Rajeev Singh
1. Facts of the case
No one appeared for the applicants. The case was listed among matters not to be adjourned, and the Court noted reluctance to pursue a proceeding pending since 2013.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court disposed of the application for non-prosecution rather than determining the allegations on merits.
3. Judicial decision
The application was dismissed for want of prosecution. Any interim order stood discharged.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
The application ended procedurally with conditional discharge of interim protection.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
Retain “if any” for the interim order. No offence provision, tax amount or assessment year is supplied, and dismissal for non-prosecution does not establish guilt, compounding or settlement.
Source and verification
Complete supplied 1-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: 12410cef037c2039d27af8601598abee62097e1ec2def27f8281de16d48db6e6
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.