ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED INTERIM / PROCEDURAL ORDER
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) v. Sh. Mohd Zahid Siddiqui
INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 1 of 2025 ·
Supplied court order; no reported citation stated
List 19 February 2025 as fresh to enable Revenue counsel to comply with Rule 5(2).
Division Bench · Rajan Roy · Manish Kumar
1. Facts of the case
The Court’s attention was drawn to Chapter XXVII Rule 5(2) of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 governing service by the Commissioner when filing an appeal or application.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The required affidavit must address service of the memorandum and written intimation to the assessee of both filing and hearing dates.
3. Judicial decision
List 19 February 2025 as fresh to enable Revenue counsel to comply with Rule 5(2).
4. Outcome / in whose favour
The appeal remained pending for procedural compliance.
5. Expert Comments
AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been verified.
Service of the memorandum alone was insufficient for the stated rule
The Bench drew attention to Chapter XXVII Rule 5(2), as requiring the Commissioner’s affidavit to address both service of the memorandum and written intimation to the assessee of the filing and hearing dates. This identifies the additional information the Court expected in the service record.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1, complete supplied order
An opportunity to comply, not dismissal
Income Tax Appeal 1/2025 against Mohd Zahid Siddiqui was listed as fresh on 19 February 2025 to enable compliance. The Court did not dismiss it, decide admission or find the tax merits proved. The useful practical distinction is between delivering a copy and documenting the separate date intimations required in this order.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1, complete supplied order
Source and verification
Complete supplied 1-page original read and visually inspected; original bytes independently SHA-256 verified against source map and ledger. No present-law or subsequent-treatment clearance is claimed.
Source SHA-256: 6bac550b8b3322b491d3983f4aa29291966b7f7b359c97e2dd7b9000ef528732
Only source-identified provisions are recorded. No current monetary threshold, current statutory equivalence or 2025 Act applicability is inferred.
Source checked 2026-10-21. 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 Expert Comments section is editorial analysis, not the Court’s holding. No current-law clearance is claimed.