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). According to reports from Business Standard, a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, stated that the relief sought would require a legislative change, which the court could not undertake in exercise of its jurisdiction. The case, titled Parveen Kumar Bansal v. Union of India, was addressed by a Bench led by the Chief Justice of India, with the court acknowledging the genuine issue raised while declining to amend existing law to facilitate the transfer.
The petition was filed by Parveen Kumar Bansal, former vice-president of the ITAT, challenging the existing appellate framework under the PBPT Act. As reported by Business Standard, the tribunal presently functions through a single Bench in New Delhi while exercising jurisdiction under multiple statutes. The petitioner 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, making the ITAT a more suitable appellate forum given its expertise in tax matters.
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. According to Business Standard, 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. The court observed that although the grievance appeared genuine, it could not alter the statutory scheme enacted by Parliament, noting that Parliament may have had valid reasons for assigning appellate jurisdiction under the Benami Act to the existing tribunal.
According to the petition reported by Business Standard, 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. The plea 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 petition 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. This decision leaves the current appellate structure intact, potentially affecting how benami matters are adjudicated in the future.
