HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Savita Rao v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Income Tax Appeal No.62/2008 ·
Supplied court judgment; no neutral citation stated
Appeal dismissed in default for non-prosecution when no one appeared for the appellant.
Division Bench · Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice · Tarlok Singh Chauhan
1. Facts of the case
The order records Nemo for the appellant in ITA 62/2008. Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate, with Vandana Kuthiala appeared for the respondent. The caption is absent from the signed sheet and is supplied by matching CNR, docket, date and disposal metadata.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court dismissed the appeal in default for non-prosecution. The sheet contains no discussion of a tax question, evidence, assessment year or disputed amount.
3. Judicial decision
ITA 62/2008 was dismissed in default for non-prosecution on 19 August 2014. The source records no restoration application, liberty to revive or merits determination.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
The appeal ends procedurally in the supplied order. The document does not establish the detailed tax consequence, the correctness of the order appealed against or any later restoration.
5. Expert Comments
AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been verified.
Non-prosecution is the stated basis of dismissal
The entire disposal is tied to the absence recorded as Nemo for the appellant and the express default/non-prosecution direction. There is no reasoned answer to a statutory tax question. The note should not convert this short disposal into a substantive precedent rejecting the taxpayer’s legal position.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1
The underlying financial result needs a separate record
The sheet does not reproduce the assessment, tribunal decision or relief sought in ITA 62/2008. It is therefore insufficient to state a particular addition, deduction or demand as finally upheld. A researcher tracing the actual tax effect needs the appealed order and the subsequent procedural history.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1
A restoration outcome cannot be inferred
No restoration application or decision appears in the supplied order. The source does not establish whether sufficient cause for non-appearance was later advanced, whether the appeal was revived or what procedural period applied. Publication of this historical dismissal creates no fresh restoration timetable.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1
The reconciled caption does not change the source’s limited scope
The supplied metadata identifies Savita Rao and Commissioner of Income Tax for the same CNR, ITA 62/2008, date and default description. The bench is taken from the signed sheet: Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice, and Tarlok Singh Chauhan. These identity details make the source traceable without filling the absence of a substantive tax discussion.
Source: PDF p.1 · Matched court metadata for caption · PDF p.1
Source and verification
Complete supplied 1-page original read and visually inspected; original bytes checked by SHA-256. The sheet lacks party names: the caption is reconciled from supplied court metadata matching CNR, docket, date and disposal text. The signed original controls the bench and operative directions. Subsequent treatment has not been verified.
Source SHA-256: 0e3cd858d1790d4def48cea9c078921a61364672643203d867e0854c968c0a63
Provisions and historical figures are recorded only as addressed in this judgment. No current statutory position or subsequent-treatment clearance is represented.
Source checked 2026-10-23. Later proceedings and present precedential treatment have not been independently 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.