High Court of Karnataka · Procedural and interlocutory orders
Mr. Siddaramanna Prasad v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Bengaluru
WP No. 3688 of 2022 (T-IT) ·
Writ seeking appeal effect and refund dismissed as withdrawn following reported settlement.
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
Siddaramanna Prasad sought an order giving effect to the CIT(A) decision dated 3 June 2019 and refund of excess tax with interest. His counsel’s memo dated 19 November 2025 stated that the matter had been settled and requested withdrawal.
2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT
The Court recorded the reported settlement through the petitioner’s memo. It did not set out the settlement terms, assess the refund calculation or determine any interest entitlement.
3. JUDICIAL DECISION
The memo was placed on record and the petition dismissed as withdrawn.
4. OUTCOME
The writ ended after reported settlement. The order does not specify an amount paid, direct payment or establish complete implementation of the CIT(A) order.
5. Expert Comments
AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.
Settlement is recorded at the level stated
Counsel reported settlement and sought withdrawal. The Court accepted that procedural request without reproducing an agreement or imposing terms. The order therefore establishes closure of the writ, while leaving the settlement’s actual performance outside its text.
Appeal effect and payment remain distinct facts
The original prayer linked implementation of the 3 June 2019 CIT(A) order to refund and interest. Withdrawal does not itself prove the date of the appeal-effect order, the refund amount or the interest computation. Those particulars must be traced to the implementation record.
No precedent on the underlying entitlement
The dismissal as withdrawn should not be cited as a rejection of the taxpayer’s entitlement or as a judicial award of refund. Its significance is procedural settlement closure; the source gives neither an assessment year nor a reasoned tax holding.
Source and verification
2-page official High Court of Karnataka judgment PDF (20251119_KAHC010359972021.pdf, 94,053 bytes).
Original PDF: 2 pages · SHA-256: 332b8579da53041382191c686c5cdc975235a360db0ce204032fc41df3302984
All 2 original pages read and visually inspected; all five panels audited.
Provisions in the petition identify the relief sought; no substantive tax interpretation is made in the operative disposal.
Subsequent treatment has not been independently verified.
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
AI-assisted source review. Independent human approval is not represented.
General research only. Expert Comments are editorial analysis, not the Court’s holding. No current-law clearance is claimed.