ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Lokesh Keswani v. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, New Delhi and two others
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 65 of 2026 ·
2026:AHC-LKO:3305
The petition was disposed of with a direction to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within six weeks after the order copy was placed before the authority. If an interim-relief application was filed, it was to be decided within two weeks from its hearing.
Single Judge · Jaspreet Singh
1. Facts of the case
The petitioner sought disposal of an appeal filed on 27 April 2022. Respondents referred to responses dated 14 September 2024 and 26 December 2025 and said the matter would be decided.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court found no gain in retaining the petition, left the merits to the authority, and addressed counsel’s assertion of recovery pressure.
3. Judicial decision
The petition was disposed of with a direction to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within six weeks after the order copy was placed before the authority. If an interim-relief application was filed, it was to be decided within two weeks from its hearing.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
Directions for consideration were granted; neither substantive tax relief nor a stay was ordered.
5. Expert Comments
AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been verified.
Expedition and recovery protection were separate requests
The Court directed consideration of the appeal pending since 27 April 2022, while expressly leaving merits open. Its six-week period is qualified by “preferably” and starts when the order copy is placed before the authority. It cannot be reported as an unconditional deadline running from the judgment date.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.2 · PDF pp.1–2, complete order
The interim application has a different trigger
On the recovery concern, the petitioner received liberty to apply for interim relief. If filed, that application was to be decided within two weeks from its hearing. Neither filing alone nor this Article 227 order grants a recovery stay. Recording the hearing date is necessary to assess compliance with that separate direction.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.2 · PDF pp.1–2, complete order
Practical implementation
Retain proof of delivery of the order, the appeal’s pending status and any interim application and hearing record. The responses dated 14 September 2024 and 26 December 2025 explain the administrative history, not the correctness of the tax demand. A later appellate or interim order is required before claiming substantive success or protection.
Source and verification
Complete supplied 2-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: 96a889ea672a470859685abbf972f1a66422c7adaa6f17e76f819bad678f579f
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.