Genuine issue but we can't amend law: Supreme Court on plea to transfer appeals in benami matters to ITAT

The Supreme Court of India has refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to transfer appellate jurisdiction over benami transaction matters to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The petition, filed by Parveen Kumar Bansal, a former Vice-President of the ITAT, argued that the ITAT was better equipped to decide matters under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. However, the Court held that transferring an entire category of disputes from one tribunal to another involves multiple considerations and is a matter of legislative policy.

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Parveen Kumar Bansal v. Union of India has significant implications for the administration of justice in India. The petition, which sought to transfer appellate jurisdiction over benami transaction matters to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), raises important questions about the allocation of judicial power and the role of tribunals in resolving disputes. This article will examine the background to the petition, the Court's decision, and the implications for legal practitioners.

The Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPT Act) is a key piece of legislation aimed at preventing benami transactions and promoting transparency in property ownership. The ITAT is a specialized forum dealing with income tax disputes, and its jurisdiction extends to matters under the PBPT Act. However, the petition argued that transferring appellate jurisdiction over benami transaction matters to the ITAT would be more efficient and effective. This raises questions about the allocation of judicial power between different tribunals and the role of the Supreme Court in overseeing this process.

The outcome of this matter has significant implications for legal practitioners who advise clients on benami transaction matters. The decision highlights the importance of engaging with administrative authorities in seeking change and underscores the need for careful consideration when advocating for changes to the allocation of judicial power.

The Supreme Court's emphasis on the need for representation before the government is a key takeaway from this matter. Legal practitioners would do well to engage with administrative authorities in seeking change, rather than relying solely on judicial intervention.