The Chief Justice of India, B.R. Gavai, has raised concerns over a staggering £6.85 lakh crore in income tax disputes currently pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). While acknowledging the ITAT's progress in reducing its backlog, the CJI stressed that this massive sum, exceeding 2% of India's GDP, represents a significant challenge. He called for comprehensive structural reforms within the ITAT, focusing on transparent appointments, improved training, technology adoption, and consistent case management to enhance judicial efficiency and public trust.
In a strong observation on judicial efficiency and the pressing need for systemic reform, Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai on Wednesday expressed concern over the massive pendency of Rs 6.85 lakh crore worth of disputes pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
Speaking at a s
Daily Limit Reached
You have reached your daily limit of 2 Free News
Subscribe to
CCI PRO
for unlimited access
Why Upgrade to
CCI PRO?
-
No Ads
-
WhatsApp Community
-
Daily E-Newsletter
-
Unlimited News Access
-
Profile Visitors
-
Link Social Profiles
-
Featured Job Posts
-
Pro Badge
-
Expert GST Guidance
-
Unlimited Forum Replies
-
Download Content in PDF
1 Year PLAN
1999
(Excl. of GST ₹359)
BEST VALUE
2 Years PLAN
3499
(Excl. of GST ₹629)
3 Months PLAN
999
(Excl. of GST ₹179)
View all CCI PRO benfits
Already a PRO member?
Login here
for an ad-free experience.
FAQ :
The total value of pending income tax disputes before the ITAT is Rs 6.85 lakh crore.
Yes, in the last five years, the ITAT has reduced its pendency from 85,000 cases to 24,000 cases.
The CJI called for an integrated approach to reforms, addressing appointments, tenure, training, case management, and technology adoption as interconnected components.
The credibility of the ITAT fundamentally relies on public confidence that its members are selected according to objective, merit-based standards.
The CJI identified inconsistent rulings as a pressing concern, warning that such discrepancies could erode public trust in the legal system.
Inconsistencies can be mitigated through early identification of conflicting judgments via special benches and internal reference mechanisms.