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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/85/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01032730202609 July 2026Author: S.G.PANDIT,K.MANMADHA RAO3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

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 before the High Court. The Court sustained the office objections regarding the maintainability of the appeal. 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. The respondent is Smt. Ruchika Kasliwal. The appeal was filed under Section 49 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The High Court noted that an Income Tax Appeal is maintainable only under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As the present appeal was filed under Section 49 of the Benami Act, it was deemed not maintainable.

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 Act, 1961, provides for appeals under Section 260A? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee (Smt. Ruchika Kasliwal) as the appeal was disposed of on a preliminary ground. Revenue's Contention: The appellant (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax) contended that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA should be set aside and the order of the Adjudicating Authority should be confirmed. However, the primary argument that led to the disposal of the appeal was related to the maintainability of the appeal under the incorrect provision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 49,Section 260A

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. 85 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 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/ 2569 / BNG/ 2023 DATED 18.11.2025 ANNEXURE-A AND 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 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-2569/BNG/2023 passed by the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA with a prayer to confirm the order of Adjudicating Authority in R.No.559/2022.

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.: 7

More judgments on Section 49

All 176 judgments and leading authorities on Section 49 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →