ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Union of India through Income Tax Commissioner v. Sahara India Firm and others
Application U/S 482 No. 92 of 2013 ·
2023:AHC-LKO:60678
The application was dismissed as infructuous and any interim order stood vacated. The applicant could apply for recall within eight weeks if the cause of action still survived. The office was directed to communicate the order to the trial court forthwith.
Single Judge · Shree Prakash Singh
1. Facts of the case
No one appeared for the applicant; the State’s Additional Government Advocate was present. The Court considered that the matter seemed to have become infructuous through passage of time.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court dismissed the application while preserving a limited opportunity to seek recall if the cause of action survived.
3. Judicial decision
The application was dismissed as infructuous and any interim order stood vacated. The applicant could apply for recall within eight weeks if the cause of action still survived. The office was directed to communicate the order to the trial court forthwith.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
The application ended, subject to the stated opportunity to seek recall; restoration was not automatic.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
Preserve the eight-week recall window and the conditional survival of the cause of action. Four supplied orders bear the same printed neutral citation, but applications 91, 92, 93 and 94 of 2013 have separate dockets and remain distinct; no correction of that citation is invented.
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: a43dc1eb5d708c4c6aede65a9ff75bbb3df9e7756199b934be3b21562b5be69a
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.