ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED INTERIM ORDER
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow v. M/s Ayodhya Development Authority, Faizabad
INCOME TAX APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 13 of 2025 ·
Supplied court order; reported citation not indexed
Notice was issued; the appellant was to take steps both ways and file a service affidavit by the next listing, 16 January 2026.
Division Bench · Sangeeta Chandra · Amitabh Kumar Rai
1. Facts of the case
C.M. Application 2/2025 sought condonation of delay. The Stamp Reporting Section reported 100 days’ delay in filing the appeal.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court directed notice without granting condonation.
3. Judicial decision
Notice was issued; the appellant was to take steps both ways and file a service affidavit by the next listing, 16 January 2026.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
The delay application remained pending on notice.
5. Expert Comments
AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been verified.
A reported delay remains an unresolved threshold issue
C.M. Application 2/2025 sought condonation, and the Stamp Reporting Section reported 100 days’ delay. The Court issued notice after hearing counsel. It neither accepted the explanation for delay nor rejected it; treating notice as condonation would prematurely remove the very issue placed before the respondent.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1, complete order
Service evidence has an express role
The appellant was to take steps both ways and file an affidavit of service by the next listing on 16 January 2026. The application, explanation and service affidavit are therefore central to following the threshold proceeding. The listing date does not prove that the respondent was served or that condonation later occurred.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1, complete order
Preserve this appeal’s identity
Defective Appeal 13/2025 is distinct from Appeal 12/2025 against the same authority. The 100-day report belongs to this order and must not migrate to the other docket. No exemption issue or substantive assessment ground is decided by these notice directions.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1, complete 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: 4f19473ba3db198a5fd01a968743f27967e8370b67d42fdd3eae2d68ffdd5cc8
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 AKHB Expert Comments is editorial analysis, not the Court’s holding. No current-law clearance is claimed.