Supreme Court’s Decision on Transferring Benami Appeals
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of India addressed a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought to transfer the appellate jurisdiction for benami transaction cases to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The bench, comprised of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, concluded that while the petitioner raised a legitimate concern, the relief requested would necessitate a legislative amendment.
In the case of Parveen Kumar Bansal v. Union of India, the Court acknowledged the validity of the issue but emphasized its inability to make changes to existing laws. “The problem is understandable. You have a genuine issue. But you are asking us to amend the law concerned,” the bench remarked, highlighting the limits of judicial authority in legislative matters.
Background of the Petition
The petition was initiated by Parveen Kumar Bansal, a former Vice-President of the ITAT. Bansal’s counsel argued that the ITAT, as a specialized body for income tax disputes, was more adept at handling cases under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPT Act). The Court, however, noted that transferring such jurisdiction involves considerations beyond judicial purview and falls within the realm of legislative policy.
The petition urged a jurisdictional shift from the Appellate Tribunal under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act (SAFEMA) to the ITAT, or alternatively, the establishment of regional benches to manage benami appeals. Currently, the SAFEMA Tribunal operates from a sole bench in New Delhi, which imposes travel burdens on litigants and officials nationwide.
Pendency and Representation
Relying on a Right to Information response from February 2026, the petition highlighted that 3,683 benami appeals were pending as of January 1. Overall, the SAFEMA Tribunal’s pending cases across various statutes totaled 12,834. From 2018 to 2025, 5,902 benami appeals were filed, with only 2,219 being resolved. The petition emphasized the increasing annual filings, which rose from 212 in 2018 to 1,646 in 2025.
More Read
Bansal contended that benami disputes typically involve financial records and transactions initially reviewed during income tax proceedings. Given the ITAT’s 63 benches across over 30 cities and its expertise in tax-related disputes, it was argued to be a more suitable forum for these cases.
Following the Supreme Court’s suggestion, the petitioner was advised to present the issue to the government. Counsel for Bansal informed the bench that such a representation had been made and requested expedient consideration. The petition was drafted by Advocate Samarvir Singh and filed through Advocate-on-Record Naman Tandon.
