The Appellate Tribunal has granted the Department's review and restored my benami appeal to its file. Can I appeal that to the High Court?
No. The Rajasthan High Court held the appeals not maintainable and dismissed them. An order granting review is not itself appealable under Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC, which applies to the Appellate Tribunal because s.40(5) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act treats it as a civil court; and the appellants could not challenge the restoration when the Tribunal's own order of 30 November 2022 had reserved liberty to the Department to seek review if Ganpati Dealcom were reviewed.
Decided by the High Court (Sanjeev Prakash Sharma ACJ and Ashutosh Kumar J) on 2026-05-20, reported as D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 396/2026 with Nos. 224/2026, 239/2026, 245/2026, 305/2026 and 397/2026; 2026:RJ-JP:21241-DB. It bears on section Order XLVII r.7 CPC, section Benami s.40(5), section Benami s.40(2)(f), section Benami s.49 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Appeals and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
It closes off the obvious route for a benamidar whose Tribunal victory has been taken back after the Ganpati Dealcom recall. The remedy is to fight the restored appeal before the Tribunal, not to appeal the order granting review.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
By order dated 30 November 2022 the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appellants' appeals applying the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited, and expressly reserved that if the apex court reviewed its judgment the respondent would be at liberty to take an appropriate remedy including filing a review petition before the Tribunal. The Supreme Court recalled the Ganpati Dealcom judgment on 18 October 2024 and restored the civil appeal. By order dated 10 July 2025 the Tribunal allowed the Union's review and restored the appeals to their original numbers, and by order dated 11 July 2025 it directed that a review application and an application for condonation of delay be governed by the order of 10 July 2025. The appellants — Munnidevi Sitani, M/s Sitaram Trading, M/s Arush Trading Pvt. Ltd., M/s Sitaram Textiles, M/s Drishtikon Sales Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Neena Sales Agencies Pvt. Ltd. — appealed to the High Court. Their counsel relied on the Supreme Court's order in Virendra Amrutbhai Patel, in which a different view was taken on the strength of Government of NCT of Delhi v K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd, and on the Gauhati High Court's order of 30 January 2026 in Satyajit Saha v Union of India, ITA No. 1/2026, framing questions on whether the power of review can be exercised having regard to s.114 read with Order XLVII CPC and s.40(2)(f) of the Act.
The appeals were held not maintainable and were dismissed, pending applications standing dismissed, and a copy of the order was directed to be placed in each connected file (paras 10 to 12).
Once liberty was granted in the original order dated 30 November 2022, the appellants could not turn round and challenge the Tribunal's order restoring the appeals on the strength of the judgments in Ganpati Dealcom (para 8). An order passed in review results in the appeal itself becoming pending again and cannot be treated as a final decision; Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC bars an appeal against an order granting review, and it applies here because under s.40(5) of the 1988 Act the Appellate Tribunal is treated as a civil court with the Code applying to it (para 9).
In view of the above, the present appeals are not maintainable and the same are, accordingly, dismissed.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. The Rajasthan High Court held the appeals not maintainable and dismissed them. An order granting review is not itself appealable under Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC, which applies to the Appellate Tribunal because s.40(5) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act treats it as a civil court; and the appellants could not challenge the restoration when the Tribunal's own order of 30 November 2022 had reserved liberty to the Department to seek review if Ganpati Dealcom were reviewed. This was decided by the High Court (Sanjeev Prakash Sharma ACJ and Ashutosh Kumar J) and bears on section Order XLVII r.7 CPC, section Benami s.40(5), section Benami s.40(2)(f), section Benami s.49 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 396/2026 with Nos. 224/2026, 239/2026, 245/2026, 305/2026 and 397/2026; 2026:RJ-JP:21241-DB. It closes off the obvious route for a benamidar whose Tribunal victory has been taken back after the Ganpati Dealcom recall. The remedy is to fight the restored appeal before the Tribunal, not to appeal the order granting review. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Do not file a s.49 appeal against the order granting review; take the point instead in the restored appeal before the Tribunal.
By order dated 30 November 2022 the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appellants' appeals applying the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited, and expressly reserved that if the apex court reviewed its judgment the respondent would be at liberty to take an appropriate remedy including filing a review petition before the Tribunal. The Supreme Court recalled the Ganpati Dealcom judgment on 18 October 2024 and restored the civil appeal. By order dated 10 July 2025 the Tribunal allowed the Union's review and restored the appeals to their original numbers, and by order dated 11 July 2025 it directed that a review application and an application for condonation of delay be governed by the order of 10 July 2025. The appellants — Munnidevi Sitani, M/s Sitaram Trading, M/s Arush Trading Pvt. Ltd., M/s Sitaram Textiles, M/s Drishtikon Sales Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Neena Sales Agencies Pvt. Ltd. — appealed to the High Court. Their counsel relied on the Supreme Court's order in Virendra Amrutbhai Patel, in which a different view was taken on the strength of Government of NCT of Delhi v K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd, and on the Gauhati High Court's order of 30 January 2026 in Satyajit Saha v Union of India, ITA No. 1/2026, framing questions on whether the power of review can be exercised having regard to s.114 read with Order XLVII CPC and s.40(2)(f) of the Act. The matter was decided on 2026-05-20 by the High Court (Sanjeev Prakash Sharma ACJ and Ashutosh Kumar J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The appeals were held not maintainable and were dismissed, pending applications standing dismissed, and a copy of the order was directed to be placed in each connected file (paras 10 to 12).
Once liberty was granted in the original order dated 30 November 2022, the appellants could not turn round and challenge the Tribunal's order restoring the appeals on the strength of the judgments in Ganpati Dealcom (para 8). An order passed in review results in the appeal itself becoming pending again and cannot be treated as a final decision; Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC bars an appeal against an order granting review, and it applies here because under s.40(5) of the 1988 Act the Appellate Tribunal is treated as a civil court with the Code applying to it (para 9). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "In view of the above, the present appeals are not maintainable and the same are, accordingly, dismissed."
It was decided by the High Court on 2026-05-20 and is reported as D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 396/2026 with Nos. 224/2026, 239/2026, 245/2026, 305/2026 and 397/2026; 2026:RJ-JP:21241-DB. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section Order XLVII r.7 CPC, section Benami s.40(5), section Benami s.40(2)(f), section Benami s.49, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The appeals were held not maintainable and were dismissed, pending applications standing dismissed, and a copy of the order was directed to be placed in each connected file (paras 10 to 12). It arises in Appeals and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section Order XLVII r.7 CPC, section Benami s.40(5), section Benami s.40(2)(f), section Benami s.49 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Sanjeev Prakash Sharma ACJ and Ashutosh Kumar J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Check whether the Tribunal's original order reserved liberty to the Department — if it did, this judgment says you cannot now turn round and attack the restoration. Reserve the substantive prospectivity ground for the restored appeal: Civil Appeal 5783/2022 is back before the Supreme Court and undecided. If you want the review power itself tested, note that the Gauhati High Court has framed questions on it in Satyajit Saha v Union of India, ITA No. 1/2026, by order of 30 January 2026.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. Decided 20 May 2026. No decision applying, affirming, doubting or overruling it was located. The judgment rests on the Appellate Tribunal's order of 30 November 2022, which had itself applied the 2022 Ganpati Dealcom judgment — the judgment the Supreme Court recalled on 18 October 2024 in Review Petition (Civil) No. 359 of 2023, 2024 INSC 799, Civil Appeal 5783/2022 standing restored and undecided. Nothing in this judgment decides whether the Tribunal was right to grant review; it holds only that an order granting review cannot be appealed. The competing view of the Supreme Court's own order in Virendra Amrutbhai Patel was pressed here and was not answered, and the Gauhati High Court has framed questions on the same issue in Satyajit Saha v Union of India, ITA No. 1/2026. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The judgment was read through to the disposition. A reader should not take it as approving the Appellate Tribunal's grant of review. Counsel for the appellants put the Supreme Court's order in Virendra Amrutbhai Patel squarely before the Court — the judgment records the submission that in that case the Supreme Court took a different view on the strength of K.L. Rathi Steels and held that the power of review would not include re-examining the case — and the Court disposed of the appeals on maintainability without deciding it. The judgment prints the Ganpati Dealcom citation as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 298 and the K.L. Rathi Steels citation as 2023 SCC Online 288, and records the Virendra Amrutbhai Patel review petition as No. 41854/2025; the Supreme Court's own order in that matter carries Diary No. 41584/2025, and the digits appear to have been transposed. The provision under which the appeals to the High Court were filed is not stated in terms; s.49 of the Act appears in the judgment as the general appeal provision. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeals were held not maintainable and were dismissed, pending applications standing dismissed, and a copy of the order was directed to be placed in each connected file (paras 10 to 12).
TaxSphere, “Munnidevi Sitani v Benami Prohibition Unit (2)”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/munnidevi-sitani-v-benami-prohibition-unit-appeal-against-review/ (validity last checked 2026-09-16)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
