ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED INTERIM / PROCEDURAL ORDER
Savitri Devi v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Govt. Of India Central Revenues Bldg. New Delhi And 4 Others
Writ Tax No. 459 Of 2025 ·
Supplied court order; no reported citation stated
Operation of the impugned orders was stayed until the next listing. List as fresh in the third week of July 2025; respondents could file their response.
Division Bench · Rajan Roy · Om Prakash Shukla
1. Facts of the case
The Court recorded that Savitri Devi’s husband died on 14 June 2023 and proceedings, including an ex parte Section 147 assessment, followed. The petitioner claimed to be an illiterate widow.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Those circumstances led the Bench to grant temporary protection while inviting the respondents’ response for possible disposal at admission.
3. Judicial decision
Operation of the impugned orders was stayed until the next listing. List as fresh in the third week of July 2025; respondents could file their response.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
Time-limited interim protection, not final cancellation of assessment.
5. Expert Comments
AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been verified.
The interim decision was tied to the recorded circumstances
The Court noted the husband’s death on 14 June 2023, subsequent proceedings including an ex parte Section 147 assessment, and Savitri Devi’s claim to be an illiterate widow. It stayed operation of the impugned orders until the next listing while allowing respondents to answer. These are the stated grounds for temporary protection, not a completed merits adjudication.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1, complete supplied order
Stay of operation differs from cancellation
The impugned orders were not quashed and the Court contemplated possible disposal at admission after a response. The source supplies no final holding on representation, service or assessment validity. The death and proceeding chronology explain the interim exercise; they do not establish that every post-death proceeding is void.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1, complete supplied order
Duration needs the later order chain
The fresh listing was in the third week of July 2025, and the stay ran to the next listing. A present claim of protection requires the subsequent orders. The source neither proves later compliance nor resolves the final liability of the estate or representative.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1, complete supplied order
Source and verification
Complete supplied 1-page original read and all source page images visually inspected; original bytes verified by SHA-256 against the ledger. No PAN is stated. Subsequent treatment and current law have not been cleared.
Source SHA-256: bd2dd4c9c91b5e29bcf647fa6da21b961fb51191fc4fa61f2ab4bdab4da8c40d
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.