ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Smt. Ranjana v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow and four others
WRIT TAX No. 252 of 2026 ·
2026:AHC-LKO:12189
The writ was dismissed as not pressed. The office was to return certified copies, if any, retaining photocopies.
Single Judge · Manish Kumar
1. Facts of the case
Respondent counsel raised the alternative remedy of a Section 260A appeal. Petitioner counsel then sought withdrawal with liberty to pursue that remedy.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court accepted withdrawal and preserved remedies permissible in law.
3. Judicial decision
The writ was dismissed as not pressed. The office was to return certified copies, if any, retaining photocopies.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
The writ ended without deciding tax merits or admitting a future appeal.
5. Expert Comments
AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been verified.
Withdrawal followed an alternative-remedy objection
Respondent counsel identified a section 260A appeal, and the petitioner chose not to press the writ. The Court acted on that choice while preserving remedies permissible in law. It did not adjudicate the challenged tax decision or formulate a substantial question for a future appeal.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1, complete order
Returning copies facilitates a next filing
The direction to return certified copies, if any, while retaining photocopies is a concrete procedural aid. It does not establish that the alternative appeal was subsequently filed or excuse its independent requirements. The impugned order, service date and actual filing record remain necessary to assess that next stage.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1, complete order
Liberty is not admission or condonation
No express extension, delay condonation or recovery stay appears in this order. The reference to the appellate remedy should therefore be read with the Court’s qualification that remedies must be permissible in law, rather than as unconditional clearance of every threshold question in a later proceeding.
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: 758a55f2a495ca5bdd33f3a7842123bc67557728da312fc10f36ed11b8c39bee
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.