The Bar association claimed that Delhi has the “highest pendency” of cases among ITAT Benches, many involving complex legal issues and high revenue stakes
According to a written reply by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman in the Rajya Sabha on March 18, tribunals across India have pendency of 23,175 direct tax cases, with ₹6.7 trillion in dispute
The Delhi branch of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bar Association has raised serious concerns over the growing backlog of cases before the Delhi Benches of the ITAT. It has brought to the fore the deteriorating judicial environment marked by frequent adjournments, perceived bias, and non-compliance with binding court judgments.
“There is an unprecedented increase in instances where even the binding judgments of the Delhi High Court are not being followed, leading to dissent among members resulting in prolonged pendency of matters for months,” the association wrote to the president of ITAT, in a letter dated April 25.
Business Standard has reviewed a copy of the letter.
According to a written reply by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman in the Rajya Sabha on March 18, tribunals across India have pendency of 23,175 direct tax cases, with ₹6.7 trillion in dispute.
According to people in the know, more than 10,000 cases are pending with Delhi ITAT itself.
There are a total of 63 ITAT Benches across India of which nine are present in the National Capital.
The Bar association claimed that Delhi has the “highest pendency” of cases among ITAT Benches, many involving complex legal issues and high revenue stakes.
“It is pertinent to note that Delhi Benches of the tribunal have the highest pendency and many of these matters involve complex legal issues and significant revenue stakes. It is therefore of utmost importance that members with experience, balanced disposition and judicial temperament be posted here, so that the ends of justice are met in a fair, equitable and unbiased manner,” the letter said.
An email sent to the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and the Law Ministry, seeking a response on the letter and the rising pendency of cases, remained unanswered until going to press.
The letter also flags concerns over the quality of orders being passed, stating that proceedings in several matters are conducted in a casual manner, falling short of the traditionally high standards of the tribunal.
In a particularly serious charge, the Bar highlighted that “an element of bias is palpably discernible” in some cases, causing repeated delays.
The letter also questioned the recent posting of a member, who had prior differences with Bar associations at other stations in the country.
Though the letter did not name the member, it alleged that the posting of the same person in Delhi violated the Supreme Court’s ruling in the “Ajay Gandhi vs. B. Singh, 265 ITR 451”case, which prohibits postings where a member has previously practiced or has personal connections.
“We also wish to state that a member who has had serious differences with every Bar association at prior postings has now been posted to Delhi — despite belonging to Delhi — in direct contravention of the binding decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Gandhi, 265 I T 451, which clearly laid down that members should not be posted to where they have practiced or have personal connections,” the letter stated.
Meanwhile, according to the letter, some senior members who have not completed their tenure in Delhi are reportedly being considered for transfer. The Bar fears this could further impact case representation and institutional credibility.
“Despite having raised these concerns informally on multiple occasions, no effective resolution appears to have emerged. Consequently, if no perceptible solution is found, the Bar would be constrained to lodge a symbolic protest by wearing black bands, which could eventually lead to boycott of Benches,” the Bar warned in the letter.
The association, in the letter, urged the ITAT president to review objective data — such as disposal rates, dissent trends, and time taken to pass orders — as evidence of the pressing issues before the Delhi Benches.
The Bar concluded by reiterating its long-standing support for the dignity of the tribunal.
It, however, warned that continued inaction would leave it with no choice but to take further steps in protest.
aniltikotekar4sme.com 