THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. PANKAJ MUTHA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/82/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01032696202602 July 2026Author: S.G.PANDIT,RAJESH RAI K3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that an appeal before it would be 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. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of. The Court granted liberty to the appellant to file an appropriate appeal under Section 49 of the Act, 1988. The office objections were sustained. The ratio decidendi is that the specific provision for filing appeals to the High Court must be followed, and an appeal filed under an incorrect provision is not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (Benami Prohibition), Bengaluru, filed an Income Tax 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 appeal was filed under Section 49 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The respondent is Shri. Pankaj Mutha.

What were the issues?

1. Whether an appeal against an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, in relation to proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, is maintainable before the High Court when filed under Section 49 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, instead of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? The appellant contended that the appeal is maintainable under Section 49 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, seeking to set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal and confirm the order of the Adjudicating Authority. The revenue's specific arguments are not explicitly detailed in the provided text, beyond the filing of the appeal itself. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondent.

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 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 82 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. M. DILIP FOR SRI. RAVI RAJ Y.V, ADVOCATE) AND:

SHRI. PANKAJ MUTHA R/O FLAT NO.B2202 VAISHNAVU TERRACES J.P NAGAR, 4TH PHASE BENGALURU-560 076 …RESPONDENT THIS ITA/ INCOME TAX APPEAL UNDER SEC.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, Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

IN FPA-PBPT- 2579/BNG/2023 DATED 18.11.2025 ANNEXURE A AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY IN R.NO.563/2022 ANNEXURE-F.

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 MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K 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-2579/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/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

More judgments on Section 49

All 176 judgments and leading authorities on Section 49 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →