THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. PANKAJ MUTHA
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that an Income Tax Appeal is maintainable only under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since the present appeal was filed under Section 49 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, it was not maintainable. The Court sustained the office objections regarding the maintainability. The appeal was disposed of with liberty granted to the appellant to file an appropriate appeal under Section 49 of the Act, 1988. No decision was made on the merits of the case.
What were the facts?
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition), Bengaluru, filed an Income Tax Appeal before the High Court of Karnataka. The appeal challenged an order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA. The appellant sought to set aside the Tribunal's order and confirm the order of the Adjudicating Authority in R.No.559/2022. The respondent is Shri. Pankaj Mutha. The appeal was filed under Section 49 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
What were the issues?
1. Whether an appeal filed under Section 49 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, is maintainable before the High Court of Karnataka, when the Income Tax Appeal is maintainable only under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant contended that the appeal was filed under Section 49 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, and sought to set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, confirming the order of the Adjudicating Authority. The revenue's specific arguments are not recorded in the judgment. The High Court raised a procedural issue regarding the maintainability of the appeal under the specified section.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 93 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (BENAMI PROHIBITION), ROOM NO.213, 2ND FLOOR, C.R BUILDING ANNEX, QUEEN'S ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVI RAJ Y. V., ADV.)
AND:
SHRI. PANKAJ MUTHA R/O FLAT NO.B2202, VAISHNAVU TERRACES, J.P. NAGAR, 4TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560076. …RESPONDENT
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 49 OF THE PROHIBITION OF BENAMI PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS ACT 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, IN FPA- PBPT/2575/BNG/ 2023 DATED 18.11.2025 ANNEXURE-A CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY IN R NO.559/2022 ANNEXURE-F.
Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: High Court of Karnataka
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
This Income Tax Appeal is filed under Section 49 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (for short 'Act, 1988), questioning the order dated 18.11.2025 bearing No.FPA-PBPT-2575/BNG/2023 passed by the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA with a prayer to confirm the order of Adjudicating Authority in R.No.559/2022.
The Income Tax Appeal would be maintainable only under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since, the present appeal is being filed under Section 49 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, the appeal would not be maintainable. Hence, the appeal
stands disposed of with a liberty to the appellant to file appropriate appeal under Section 49 of the Act, 1988.
Accordingly, the office objections are sustained.
Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE
Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE
NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
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 →- Anjanarani Jena vs. The Commissioner,CGST, Cx And CustomsOrissa · 10 Nov 2026
- M/S Alok Kumar Sethi, Bhubaneswar vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 10 Nov 2026
- Natuk Mra vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 OrsGauhati · 10 Nov 2026
- Tatvam Procon Private Limited, Gujarat vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 10 Nov 2026
- Swapna Acharya vs. Superintendent, GST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar-1Orissa · 10 Nov 2026