Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
The CJI was speaking at a seminar and a felicitation ceremony titled ‘Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Role, Challenges and the Way Forward’ here on Wednesday.
However, Justice Gavai praised ITAT for reducing the number of pending cases from 85,000 to 24,000 in the last five years.
“A major problem in the courts as well as in other tribunals is the huge pendency of cases. I am happy to note that Mr. Bhadang (ITAT chief) said that in the last five years they have reduced the pendency of cases from 85,000 to 24,000.
“I must congratulate all the members of ITAT as well as the members of the Bar as without the cooperation of the Bar it would not have been possible to achieve such a great achievement. However, there are still matters in dispute which you are aware of Rs 6.85 lakh crore which is more than 2% of India’s GDP is still pending before the tribunal for consideration,” he said.
Justice Gavai praised the Tribunal for its significant contribution to the justice delivery system while urging a renewed focus on structural and procedural reforms to meet contemporary challenges.
He underlined the need for comprehensive reform and modernization of ITAT with emphasis on transparency in appointments, consistency in decisions and investment in capacity building to strengthen the credibility and efficiency of the institution.
He said, “In my view the way forward should be comprehensive. Reforms should address issues of appointments, tenure, training, case management and technology as interconnected components of an institutional ecosystem, and not treat them as isolated policy measures.”
The event was attended by dignitaries including Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal and ITAT Chairman Justice CV Bhadang.
“The ITAT continues to navigate the complex interplay between law and finance while delivering timely and informed decisions,” the CJI said. He said its work provides an important layer of investigation that supports the broader judicial system.
Read also, AIADMK hints at alliance with Vijay’s party TVK amid preparations for state elections in Tamil Nadu
“We must approach ITAT with gratitude for its achievements and a serious desire to address its structural challenges,” he said.
The CJI identified conflicting judgments as another significant concern, warning that inconsistencies in judgments could erode public trust and legal certainty.
“When courts and tribunals provide consistent, rational and predictable decisions, the law becomes a stable framework within which citizens can confidently exercise their rights and duties. Conversely, inconsistent or contradictory opinions can undermine the authority of the legal system and hinder the effective administration of justice, especially in technical and highly specialized areas such as income tax,” he said.
Referring to the need for multidimensional reforms, he said that there should be a transparent appointment process.
He said, “Appointment processes in the ITAT must remain transparent. The credibility of a tribunal fundamentally depends on public confidence that its members are selected as per objective standards rather than for temporary administrative convenience. I can only tell the Law Minister that the law has kept the minimum entry for an ITAT member at 50. I became a High Court judge at the age of 42.”
He suggested tenure structures that allow members to develop and preserve expertise.
“Eligibility criteria should be adapted to attract senior practitioners to the point in their career where their experience can be effectively applied, rather than postponing appointments until the end of their professional lives,” he said.
Justice Gavai called for systematic induction and continuing education programs to enhance judicial skills and reduce anomalies.
He proposed early identification of conflicting decisions through special benches and internal reference mechanisms to ensure consistency in decisions.
The CJI stressed the need for stable secretariat support, adequate registry staff and greater control over infrastructure and staffing to prevent disruption of judicial work.