ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Smt. Meenakshi Devi v. Commissioner of Income Tax
INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 99 of 2013 ·
Supplied court order; reported citation not indexed
The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
Division Bench · Shekhar B. Saraf · Arun Kumar
1. Facts of the case
Appellant counsel stated that the appeal had become infructuous and requested dismissal.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court accepted the statement in respondent counsel’s presence.
3. Judicial decision
The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
No tax-merits adjudication was made.
5. Expert Comments
AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been verified.
Infructuousness is recorded without its underlying event
Meenakshi Devi’s counsel said that appeal 99/2013 had become infructuous, and the Court dismissed it on that basis in Revenue counsel’s presence. The order gives no account of the event that removed the live controversy. Settlement, cancellation, payment and supersession would all be unsupported explanations.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1, complete supplied order
The disposition supplies no substantive tax precedent
A dismissal on this statement does not resolve the original grounds of appeal or endorse the assessment. It should remain indexed as procedural closure, while any explanation of why the dispute ceased would need another record. No liberty to refile or revival condition is expressed in this source.
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: 31420dee935079835a849e1c76497e0886fc183e4e91717f33cb038e9a3927fc
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.