THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. RUCHIKA KASLIWAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/87/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01032700202609 July 2026Author: S.G.PANDIT,K.MANMADHA RAO3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that an appeal against an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, in the context of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, is not maintainable under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The correct provision for filing such an appeal is Section 49 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. Consequently, the appeal filed under Section 260A was deemed not maintainable. The Court sustained the office objections regarding the maintainability of the appeal. The appellant was granted liberty 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 appeal before the High Court of Karnataka against 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. 563/2022. The respondent is Smt. Ruchika Kasliwal. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but the operative provision under which the appeal was purportedly filed was Section 49 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The High Court noted this discrepancy in the filing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether an appeal against an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, concerning the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, is maintainable before the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, or if it should be filed under Section 49 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The Appellant contended that the appeal should be allowed, the order of the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA be set aside, and the order of the Adjudicating Authority be confirmed. The Appellant filed the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue (Appellant) implicitly argued for the maintainability of the appeal under Section 260A. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the Respondent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 49

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 AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 87 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:

SMT. RUCHIKA KASLIWAL R/O FLAT NO.B2202, VAISHNAVU TERRACES, J.P. NAGAR, 4TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560 076. …RESPONDENT

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260 A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, IN FPA-PBPT/ 2573 / BNG/ 2023 DATED 18.11.2025 ANNEXURE-A AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY IN R NO.563/2022 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 AND 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-2573/BNG/2023 passed by the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA with a prayer to confirm the order of Adjudicating Authority in R.No.563/2022.

2.

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.: 9

More judgments on Section 49

All 176 judgments and leading authorities on Section 49 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →