The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a public interest litigation seeking the transfer of appellate jurisdiction under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPT Act) to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) or, alternatively, the creation of regional benches of the existing Appellate Tribunal.
The PIL has been filed by a former Vice President of the ITAT. The petitioner contends that the present Appellate Tribunal dealing with benami matters is overburdened, resulting in delays, and seeks transfer of jurisdiction to the ITAT, citing its expertise in income tax-related issues.
Appearing for the petitioner, counsel argued that the ITAT is a specialised tribunal dealing with income tax matters and that proceedings under the PBPT Act are closely connected with income tax law, making the ITAT the appropriate appellate forum.
During the hearing, the Bench of Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana expressed its inability to direct a legislative or policy change merely because of administrative inconvenience. The Court illustrated the implications of the petitioner’s argument by observing that if cases are being transferred to reduce the burden on an authority, that by itself cannot justify transferring the authority to an entirely different forum.
“
“The statement of law should have this statute behind it… the problem is understandable, you have a genuine issue, but you are asking us to amend the law. You are asking us, irreversibly, to transfer the Appellate Authority under the Benami Act. You will say that because that Appellate Authority is overburdened, tell the government not to transfer A case, B case, C case, D case to guard the property. You are saying because A, B, C, D cases are transferred, transfer the authority itself to someone else.”
The Bench declined to entertain the prayer for judicial intervention, observing that the relief sought would effectively require the Court to alter the statutory framework governing the appellate mechanism under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. While acknowledging the petitioner’s concerns regarding the burden on the existing Appellate Tribunal, the Court held that such issues cannot justify directing the transfer of appellate jurisdiction to another tribunal. Instead, it left it open to the petitioner to pursue the representation already made before the Central Governmen.