HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Income Tax Officer, Parwanoo v. Super Industries and others
Criminal Appeal No.157/2014 ·
Supplied court judgment; no neutral citation stated
Departmental criminal appeal dismissed as withdrawn on instructions in a 22 June 2026 communication; no merits determination recorded.
Single Judge · Rakesh Kainthla
1. Facts of the case
The Income Tax Officer, Parwanoo was the appellant in Criminal Appeal 157/2014 against Super Industries and others. Appellant counsel sought withdrawal on instructions received through a 22 June 2026 communication, which the Court took on record.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Justice Rakesh Kainthla recorded the withdrawal request and disposed of the appeal by a short oral order. The supplied one-page source does not set out prosecution allegations, the challenged trial order, a charging provision or the reasons for the departmental withdrawal instruction.
3. Judicial decision
The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of in that manner.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
The departmental appeal ends procedurally. The High Court records no fresh adjudication of the underlying prosecution, tax liability, penalty or assessment merits.
5. Expert Comments
AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been verified.
Withdrawal is the operative disposal, rather than a merits ruling
The Court acts on appellant counsel’s request under the 22 June 2026 communication and dismisses the appeal as withdrawn. The order cannot be cited as a reasoned appellate decision approving or rejecting a particular prosecution or tax-law proposition. The source does not reproduce the order appealed against.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1
The communication is identified, but its policy or factual reasons are not supplied
Taking the instruction on record establishes the procedural basis stated for withdrawal. It does not establish a monetary-limit policy, a defect in sanction, an acquittal ground or a concession about the underlying tax demand. Those explanations require the communication and relevant lower-court record.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1
Keep the appeal and any miscellaneous applications within their stated scope
The disposition also addresses pending miscellaneous applications, if any, without enumerating them. No additional docket should be invented. The source supplies no direction extinguishing an independent assessment, recovery or civil proceeding, and no refund or costs award.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1
Retain this case separately from the same-date Dev Bhumi appeal
This is Super Industries, Criminal Appeal 157/2014. The supplied Dev Bhumi Industries appeal 156/2014 is a distinct case despite the same date, judge, advocates and withdrawal wording. Both identity and source bytes must be preserved. No unprinted Income-tax Act section or assessment year is inferred, and later proceedings have not been independently checked.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1
Original judgment and subsequent status
Read the original judgment / orderFull original read; every original page visually inspected.
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.