ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED INTERIM ORDER
Manoj Kumar Sharma v. Puneet Kumar, Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Lucknow and another
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. 2866 of 2025 ·
Supplied court order; reported citation not indexed
Notice was issued to respondent 2; steps were required within seven days. Listing was directed in the week commencing 3 November 2025, as fresh, with an office service report.
Single Judge · Manish Kumar
1. Facts of the case
The application alleged wilful disobedience of the 16 January 2025 order in Writ Tax 375/2024.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court required respondent 2 to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated.
3. Judicial decision
Notice was issued to respondent 2; steps were required within seven days. Listing was directed in the week commencing 3 November 2025, as fresh, with an office service report.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
This was a notice-stage order, not a finding of contempt.
5. Expert Comments
AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been verified.
A notice to explain is not a contempt finding
The Court calls on respondent 2 to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for alleged wilful disobedience of the 16 January 2025 order in Writ Tax 375/2024. The allegation remains an allegation at this stage. The notice is not a finding that either named respondent disobeyed the writ order, nor an award of the underlying tax relief.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1, complete supplied order
The next procedural steps define this order’s scope
The applicant was to take steps within seven days and the office was to report service by the next listing, in the week commencing 3 November 2025. These are service and listing directions, not deadlines for granting a refund or complying with an unquoted substantive command. The underlying writ order and subsequent contempt orders are needed for those questions.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1, complete supplied order
Source and verification
Complete supplied 1-page original read and every page visually inspected; original PDF bytes verified by SHA-256 against the review ledger. Only source-identified provisions and assessment years are indexed. No PAN is stated. No current-law clearance is claimed.
Source SHA-256: 82b9936055724b317e0691220601a3801e341ec6524f1eec6342ae470b31e37a
Only source-identified provisions are recorded. No current monetary threshold, current statutory equivalence or 2025 Act applicability is inferred.
Source checked 2026-10-21. The supplied 9 September 2025 notice and 10 February 2026 dismissal in this contempt docket were read together. Other subsequent treatment is not 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.