SC refuses plea to shift Benami Act appeals to ITAT, allows representation

The apex court said transferring appellate jurisdiction under the Benami Act would require legislative changes, but allowed the petitioner to pursue a pending representation before the Centre

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to transfer appellate jurisdiction under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPT Act), from the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). However, it allowed the petitioner to pursue his pending representation before the Centre.

 

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, said the relief sought would require a legislative change, which the court could not undertake in exercise of its jurisdiction.

 

The petition was filed by Parveen Kumar Bansal, former vice-president of the ITAT. It challenged the existing appellate framework under the PBPT Act, under which appeals are heard by the Appellate Tribunal established under the PMLA.

 

The tribunal presently functions through a single Bench in New Delhi while exercising jurisdiction under multiple statutes.

 

At the outset, the Bench observed that although the grievance appeared genuine, the court could not alter the statutory scheme enacted by Parliament.

 

"You have a genuine issue. I understand. But you are asking us to amend the law," the Bench remarked, adding that Parliament may have had valid reasons for assigning appellate jurisdiction under the Benami Act to the existing tribunal.

 

Appearing for the petitioner, counsel argued that disputes under the PBPT Act are closely linked to income tax proceedings and largely involve scrutiny of financial records, accounting entries, sources of funds and transactional structures. Given its expertise in tax matters, the ITAT, he submitted, would be a more suitable appellate forum.

 

When the court indicated that it could not rewrite the law, the petitioner sought an alternative direction for expeditious consideration of a representation already submitted to the Union government.

 

Accepting the request, the Bench granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue the representation before the competent authority instead of examining the PIL on merits.

 

According to the petition, the present arrangement creates structural and accessibility concerns because all appeals under the PBPT Act are heard by a single tribunal Bench in New Delhi.

 

It argued that this forces litigants, lawyers, chartered accountants, witnesses and government officials from across the country to travel to the capital, increasing costs and delays while making the appellate remedy less accessible.

 

The plea had sought either the transfer of appellate jurisdiction to the ITAT or, alternatively, the establishment of regional Benches to hear appeals under the Benami Act.