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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/83/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01032704202602 July 2026Author: S.G.PANDIT,RAJESH RAI K2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

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 judgment did not decide the merits of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal or the Adjudicating Authority.

What were the facts?

The appellant, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (Benami Prohibition), filed an Income Tax Appeal (ITA) No. 83 of 2026 before the High Court of Karnataka. The appeal challenged an order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA (FPA-PBPT-2572/BNG/2023). The appellant sought to set aside this order and confirm the order of the Adjudicating Authority (R.No.562/2022). The appeal was filed under Section 49 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The High Court noted an office objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether an appeal filed under Section 49 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, before the High Court is maintainable, when the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides for appeals under Section 260A. Assessee's Contention: The appellant (Revenue) contended that the appeal was maintainable under Section 49 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, and sought to set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal, confirming the order of the Adjudicating Authority. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the appeal was filed under Section 49 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, but the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically provides for maintainability of appeals before the High Court under Section 260A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 49,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33048-DB ITA No. 83 of 2026 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. 83 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. Y.V. RAVI RAJ, ADVOCATE) AND:

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

THIS ITA FILED PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, IN FPA-PBPT-2572/BNG/2023 DATED 18.11.2025 ANNEXURE-A AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY IN R.NO.562/2022 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 Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33048-DB ITA No. 83 of 2026 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-2572/BNG/2023 passed by the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA with a prayer to confirm the order of Adjudicating Authority in R.No.562/2022.

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.: 6

More judgments on Section 49

All 176 judgments and leading authorities on Section 49 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →