Tribunal refuses to set aside ex-parte orders in benami appeal of M/s SRS Mining
Background of the dispute
The proceedings arose from Appeal No. FPA-PBPT-191/CHN/2018, filed by the Department under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPTA) challenging the Order dated 15.10.2018 of the Adjudicating Authority.
The Adjudicating Authority had declined to confirm the Provisional Attachment Order dated 27.09.2017. The Department carried the matter in appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA at New Delhi.
During the appellate proceedings, on account of repeated non‑appearance by the Respondent firm M/s SRS Mining, the Tribunal, by Order dated 03.07.2024, decided to proceed ex‑parte against the firm while still granting it liberty to participate in further hearings. Despite this latitude, M/s SRS Mining did not appear on subsequent dates, and the appeal was finally heard and allowed in favour of the Department on 30.01.2025.
Following this, M/s SRS Mining (Respondent in the appeal) moved three recall applications under Section 40 of PBPTA:
- I.A. No. MP-PBPT-917/CHN/2025 (Recall) dated 03.02.2025
- I.A. No. MP-PBPT-918/CHN/2025 (Recall) dated 03.02.2025
- I.A. No. MP-PBPT-1286/CHN/2025 (Recall) dated 18.03.2025
The firm also filed an application seeking to introduce additional documents, most notably a Supreme Court judgment in a related matter.
The Tribunal’s order under discussion disposes of these recall applications and the associated plea for taking additional documents on record.
Chronology of appellate proceedings
Key events before the Tribunal
The Tribunal recorded a detailed timeline of the assessee’s non‑participation:
18.10.2023
- No one appeared for the Respondent (M/s SRS Mining).
- An advocate, Mr. Ankit Gupta, mentioned that he had been newly engaged and sought two weeks’ time to file vakalatnama, which the Tribunal allowed.
- The Department also sought adjournment due to unavailability of its main counsel.
- Appeal adjourned to 13.02.2024.
13.02.2024
- The Department requested time to file written submissions within four weeks.
- No representative appeared for the Respondent; the Department’s counsel informed that, to his knowledge, the Respondent’s counsel was unwell.
- Appeal adjourned to 03.07.2024.
03.07.2024
- At the request of the Department’s counsel, the Tribunal corrected an inadvertent error in the Respondent’s name (from “B Babu Manoharan” to “M/s SRS Mining”).
- None appeared for M/s SRS Mining.
- The Tribunal ordered that the Respondent be proceeded against ex‑parte, though it expressly allowed liberty to rejoin the proceedings.
- The matter was posted for final hearing on 16.10.2024 and operation of the impugned Adjudicating Authority’s order was stayed.
16.10.2024
- The appeal was listed for final hearing but could not be taken up because the Department’s main counsel was absent.
- A four‑week adjournment was granted as a last chance, and the matter was fixed for 14.01.2025.
14.01.2025
- The Department’s counsel argued the appeal in detail.
- Despite multiple opportunities, no one appeared for the Respondent.
- The Tribunal reserved its order.
30.01.2025
- The Tribunal delivered its final order, allowing the Department’s appeal and setting aside the Adjudicating Authority’s order dated 15.10.2018 as being devoid of merit.
Subsequently, after the adverse final order, M/s SRS Mining filed recall applications targeting the three crucial dates/orders:
- 03.07.2024 (order proceeding ex‑parte),
- 14.01.2025 (order reserving judgment when Respondent remained absent), and
- 30.01.2025 (final order allowing Department’s appeal).
Grounds urged by M/s SRS Mining for recall
Plea of personal hardship and counsel’s negligence
Learned Senior Counsel for M/s SRS Mining submitted the following:
- One of the partners, Shri J. Sekar, had taken on the responsibility of instructing counsel and monitoring the litigation.
- During the relevant period, his father suffered from serious illness (including dementia) and ultimately passed away in July 2024.
- This caused severe emotional strain and disruption in communication between the partner and the previous counsel.
- The earlier counsel allegedly did not track the matter diligently or inform the firm about the case status, leading to continued non‑appearance.