HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Rajesh Popli v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another
Income Tax Appeals Nos.1–7 of 2015, 101–104, 106 and 107 of 2018, and 9 and 10 of 2020, with connected OMPs of 2021 ·
Supplied court judgment; no neutral citation stated
Fifteen taxpayer appeals dismissed as withdrawn for reasons assigned in their applications. One common-order note retains all fifteen appeal/application pairings and fourteen supplied complete original variants.
Division Bench · Ravi Malimath · Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1. Facts of the case
Rajesh Popli was appellant in fifteen listed appeals. The connected withdrawal applications were: OMP 257/2021 in ITA 1/2015; OMP 254/2021 in ITA 2/2015; OMP 255/2021 in ITA 3/2015; OMP 256/2021 in ITA 4/2015; OMP 252/2021 in ITA 5/2015; OMP 253/2021 in ITA 6/2015; OMP 251/2021 in ITA 7/2015; OMP 249/2021 in ITA 101/2018; OMP 248/2021 in ITA 102/2018; OMP 250/2021 in ITA 103/2018; OMP 247/2021 in ITA 104/2018; OMP 246/2021 in ITA 106/2018; OMP 245/2021 in ITA 107/2018; OMP 243/2021 in ITA 9/2020; OMP 244/2021 in ITA 10/2020. The first thirteen captions name the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax as respondent; the two 2020 captions state Principal Commissioner of Income. Counsel appeared through video conferencing.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court referred to the reasons assigned in the applications and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Those reasons were not reproduced in the judgment. The source contains no substantive tax analysis, tax-effect computation or identified circular.
3. Judicial decision
All fifteen listed appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. Their applications were disposed of accordingly.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
The taxpayer’s fifteen appeals ended through one common withdrawal order. All appeal and OMP identities are retained in one canonical note, with every one of the fourteen complete supplied original variants available.
5. Expert Comments
AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been verified.
The reasons in the applications are not reasons supplied in the judgment
The operative paragraph expressly acts for the reasons assigned in the applications. The judgment does not reproduce those reasons or identify a circular, settlement scheme, payment, concession or other substantive explanation. A reader would need the applications to establish what prompted withdrawal. Describing the disposal as a low-tax-effect decision, a settlement or an admission that an assessment was correct would add facts that the common order does not state.
Source: PDF p.4 · PDF p.4
All fifteen appeal and application pairings remain part of the record
The common order covers ITAs 1–7/2015,101–104,106,107/2018 and 9–10/2020. Each is paired with a distinct OMP of 2021, listed in the facts panel and retained individually in the connected docket metadata. The fifteen applications are not fifteen further judgments. Equally, canonical publication must not obscure any of the fifteen appeals actually disposed of. The full four-page original preserves their captions and the application pairings across pages 3 and 4.
Source: PDF pp.1–4 · PDF pp.1–4
Taxpayer withdrawal does not determine the underlying tax questions
Rajesh Popli is the appellant throughout; this is not Revenue abandoning its appeals. The Court does not state assessment years, disputed amounts, substantial questions or a substantive statutory provision. It supplies no reasoned ruling on an addition, exemption or deduction. Dismissal as withdrawn ends the listed appeals, but is not an adjudicated rejection of an identified tax proposition. No express restoration liberty, fresh-filing permission, limitation protection or costs award is recorded.
Source: PDF pp.1–4 · PDF pp.1–4
Respondent descriptions are preserved without inventing missing caption text
The first thirteen appeals identify the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The captions for ITAs 9 and 10 of 2020 print Principal Commissioner of Income without the word Tax. The note records that supplied description rather than silently completing it or changing all fifteen respondents to one designation. The court, date, Rajesh Popli identity, complete appeal list and operative paragraph establish the common-order scope despite that abbreviated caption text.
Source: PDF pp.1–3 · PDF pp.1–3
Fourteen originals are evidence of one common disposition
The fourteen supplied PDFs reproduce the same complete four-page common order and all fifteen appeal identities. Complete normalized texts match, and every one of the fifty-six rendered page pixel hashes matches its corresponding visually inspected canonical page. The original byte hashes are retained separately. One canonical note therefore provides all fourteen originals without treating their different filenames or bytes as separate judicial decisions. Fifteen listed appeals do not justify inventing a fifteenth supplied file.
Source: PDF pp.1–4 · PDF pp.1–4
Original judgment and subsequent status
Read the original judgment / orderFull original read; every original page visually inspected.
All fourteen complete four-page supplied originals reviewed. Full normalized text and all15 appeal/application pairings match. All56 rendered page pixel hashes exactly match corresponding visually inspected canonical pages; every original byte hash retained.
Subsequent case status: Appeal, review, recall and stay status has not been independently confirmed.
About this note
Prepared with AI assistance. Read with the original judgment.
General information. Application depends on the facts, statutory provisions, assessment year and jurisdiction.