MS K.T. INC vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal held that the present case is a covered case. This conclusion was based on the admission by the revenue that the case is covered by the order dated 30/01/2026 passed by the High Court in ITA 1/2026. The Tribunal further noted that the Supreme Court had not interfered with the order in ITA 1/2026. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to set aside the Provisional Attachment Order dated 25/06/2018 passed by the Initiating Officer and the order dated 05/01/2026 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA. The ratio of this decision is that if a case is factually identical to a previously decided case by a higher court or a coordinate bench, and the revenue admits it as covered, then the same relief should be granted. The appeal was disposed of as allowed.
What were the facts?
The appellant, Sri Debabrata Saha, proprietor of a foreign liquor shop, appealed against an order dated 05/01/2026 passed by the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA. The appeal was filed under Section 49 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988. The appellant contended that the case was covered by a previous order of the same court dated 30/01/2026 in ITA 1/2026 (Satyajit Saha and 9 Ors. Vs. the Union of India and 3 Ors.). This was because the transactions leading to the Provisional Attachment Order of assets and the impugned order occurred prior to 10/08/2016. The appellant further stated that the Supreme Court had not interfered with the order in ITA 1/2026. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, admitted that the present case was covered by the aforementioned order.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Provisional Attachment Order dated 25/06/2018 and the order dated 05/01/2026 passed by the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA are liable to be set aside, in light of the transactions pertaining to the period prior to 10/08/2016 and the binding precedent of this Court in ITA 1/2026, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Assessee's Contention: The appellant argued that the present case is a covered case and should be decided in terms of this Court's order dated 30/01/2026 in ITA 1/2026. This is because the transactions in question occurred before 10/08/2016. The appellant relied on the fact that the Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP filed by the respondents against the order in ITA 1/2026. Revenue's Contention: The learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department admitted that the present case is covered by the order dated 30/01/2026 passed by this Court in ITA 1/2026, and that this order has not been interfered with by the Supreme Court.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Date : 02-11-2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J)
Heard Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the appellant and Dr. P. Agarwal, learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department.
The appellant has preferred the instant appeal by invoking the provisions of Section 49 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), by assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 05/01/2026, passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA at New Delhi in review applications, including an application for condonation of delay filed by the respondents.
The case of the appellant is that the present case is a covered case and can be decided in terms of the order dated 30/01/2026, passed by this court in ITA 1/2026 (Satyajit Saha and 9 Ors. Vs. the Union of India and 3 Ors.), inasmuch as, the transactions, on the basis of which the Provisional Attachment Order of assets of the appellant and order dated 05.01.2026 had been made, pertained to transactions which occurred prior to 10/08/2016. He accordingly submits that in view of the order dated 30/01/2026, passed by this court in ITA 1/2026, which has not been interfered with by Page No.# 3/3 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(Civil) Diary No.53803/2026, the Provisional Attachment Order dated 25/06/2018 passed by the Initiating Officer and the order dated 05/01/2026 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA at New Delhi, in MP-PBPT-938/GWH/2025 (Review) MP-PBPT-939/GWH/ 2025 (CoD) in FPA- PBPT-928/GWH/2019, should be set aside. He submits that the three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 07.10.2026 passed in SLP(C) Diary No.53803/2026 had dismissed the SLP filed by the respondents against the order dated 30/01/2026, passed by this court in ITA 1/2026. 4. Dr. P. Agarwal, the learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department admits that the present case is covered by the order dated 30/01/2026, passed by this court in ITA 1/2026, which has not been interfered with by the Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in it’s order dated 07.10.2026 passed in SLP(C) Diary No.53803/2026 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. Satyajit Saha & Ors.)
As the present case is a covered case, the Provisional Attachment Order dated 25/06/2018, passed by the Initiating Officer and the order dated 05/01/2026, passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA at New Delhi in MP-PBPT- 938/GWH/2025 (Review) MP-PBPT-939/GWH/ 2025 (CoD) in FPA-PBPT- 928/GWH/2019 are hereby set aside.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of as allowed.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant
More judgments on Section 49
- Edwise International Prop Edwise… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Cirlce…ITA 4878/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Jayavelbose, Chennai vs DCIT, Ncc-7(1), ChennaiITA 2712/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed20 Jul 2026AY 2017-18
- Deen Dayal Gupta S/O Shri Ram Kanwar vs Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCW/9482/201914 Jul 2026
- Thongam Shanti Singh, Imphal vs ITO W-3, ImphalITA 428/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2026AY 2019-20
- Shri Kiran Dinkar Patil, Ambernath vs Income Tax Officer, KalyanITA 3266/MUM/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard30 Jun 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
