In a significant development concerning the appellate framework under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPT Act), the Supreme Court of India has declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the transfer of appellate jurisdiction from the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
While refusing to issue directions for altering the statutory appellate mechanism, the Court granted the petitioner the liberty to pursue his pending representation before the Union Government for appropriate consideration.
Background of the Case
The PIL was filed by Parveen Kumar Bansal, former Vice President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petition sought a direction to transfer the appellate jurisdiction under the PBPT Act from the PMLA Appellate Tribunal to the ITAT. As an alternative relief, the petitioner requested the establishment of regional benches for hearing appeals under the Benami Act instead of requiring litigants from across the country to approach a single bench located in New Delhi.
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi.
Supreme Court’s Observations
During the hearing, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the petitioner had raised a genuine concern regarding the functioning of the present appellate system. However, the Bench made it clear that the relief sought effectively required the Court to amend the statutory framework enacted by Parliament.
The Bench observed that the legislature may have had valid policy reasons for assigning appellate jurisdiction under the PBPT Act to the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the PMLA. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the existing legislative scheme.
The Court remarked that while the issue deserved attention, it could not rewrite the provisions of the law or substitute its own institutional preferences for those of Parliament.
Petitioner’s Arguments
On behalf of the petitioner, counsel argued that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is a specialised judicial forum possessing extensive expertise in taxation, accounting, financial transactions, and examination of documentary evidence.
According to the petitioner, proceedings under the PBPT Act largely originate from income-tax investigations and involve issues such as:
Examination of financial records
Analysis of accounting entries
Verification of the source of funds
Evaluation of banking and transactional records
Determination of beneficial ownership
Since these issues are closely connected with income-tax proceedings, it was contended that the ITAT would be a more appropriate appellate authority than the PMLA Appellate Tribunal, whose primary jurisdiction relates to enforcement and confiscation proceedings under anti-money laundering laws.
The petitioner also argued that assigning Benami Act appeals to the ITAT would promote consistency, judicial efficiency, and specialised adjudication.
Concern Over Centralised Tribunal Structure
One of the major concerns raised in the PIL related to the centralised functioning of the Appellate Tribunal exercising jurisdiction under the PBPT Act.
Presently, the tribunal operates through a single bench in New Delhi, compelling litigants, advocates, chartered accountants, government officers, and witnesses from different parts of India to travel to the national capital for appellate hearings.
The petitioner submitted that this arrangement significantly increases litigation costs, causes inconvenience, and creates practical barriers in accessing justice, particularly for small businesses and individual taxpayers located outside Delhi.
The plea further highlighted that the absence of regional benches results in unnecessary delays and places additional financial and logistical burdens on stakeholders involved in Benami Act litigation.
Alternative Prayer Before the Supreme Court
Recognising the Court’s reluctance to modify the statutory scheme, the petitioner’s counsel alternatively requested a direction to the Union Government for expeditious consideration of the representation already submitted regarding restructuring of the appellate mechanism.
Taking note of this submission, the Supreme Court permitted the petitioner to pursue the pending representation before the competent authority instead of entertaining the PIL.
Although no specific timeline was prescribed, the Court granted liberty to seek consideration of the representation through the appropriate governmental channel.
Significance of the Judgment
The Supreme Court’s order reinforces the well-established constitutional principle that courts ordinarily refrain from entering the legislative domain by restructuring statutory tribunals or altering appellate forums created by Parliament.
At the same time, the Court recognised that the concerns regarding accessibility, specialised adjudication, and regional availability of appellate forums are genuine policy issues that can be examined by the executive and legislature.
The decision leaves open the possibility of future reforms if the Central Government considers the representation and finds merit in revisiting the existing appellate framework under the PBPT Act.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has declined to transfer appellate jurisdiction under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act from the PMLA Appellate Tribunal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, holding that such a change falls within the legislative domain rather than the judicial sphere. Nevertheless, by permitting the petitioner to pursue his representation before the Union Government, the Court has kept alive the broader debate on whether Benami Act appeals should be heard by a specialised tax tribunal or whether regional benches should be established to improve access to justice. Any change to the present appellate structure will ultimately depend upon legislative or executive action rather than judicial intervention.
Case Title: Parveen Kumar Bansal v. Union of India & Others
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 843 of 2026