A.T. Kearney Limited Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court)
Summary: The Delhi High Court was considering connected writ petitions concerning the functioning of the Board for Advance Rulings under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The first matter in the source is W.P.(C) 5178/2021 filed by A.T. Kearney Limited – India Branch Office against the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and another. The connected matters include W.P.(C) 5454/2021 filed by Mitsubishi Electric India Pvt Ltd and W.P.(C) 5728/2021 along with CM APPL. 27029/2023 filed by The Regents of the University of Michigan.
During submissions, Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel, argued that the amendment in Section 245N of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been brought with a view to providing advance rulings to taxpayers in a timely manner. He also submitted that the Union of India was facing difficulty in finding suitable candidates for the posts of Chairman and Vice-Chairman.
Mr. Sachit Jolly, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that even after the amendment, the situation had remained the same and that there was large pendency of cases before the Board for Advance Ruling. According to the submission, the purpose for which the Board under Section 245N of the Act of 1961 had been constituted had practically been defeated.
The Court directed the respondents to file an affidavit indicating the pendency of cases before the Board or Boards and their benches. The affidavit was also directed to state whether the Chief Commissioners nominated by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) as members of the Board could be sent back to the field or whether they were permanently appointed by the Board until superannuation. The affidavit was required to be filed within seven days. The connected cases were directed to be listed on 24.09.2026.
The order therefore records directions for disclosure concerning the pendency of matters before the Board(s) for Advance Rulings and the status of the Chief Commissioners nominated as Board members. The Court did not finally determine the substantive challenge in the present order, but directed the respondents to provide the specified information by affidavit before the next listing.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. During the course of submissions, it has been argued by Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel that the amendment in Section 245 N of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’), was brought with a view to providing advance ruling to the tax payer in timely manner and that the Union of India was finding it difficult to get suitable candidates for the post of Chairman and Vice-Chairman.
2. Mr. Sachit Jolly, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that even after the amendment, the situation has remained the same and there is large pendency of the cases before board for advance ruling and the purpose for which the Board under Section 245 N of the Act of 1961 was constituted has practically been defeated.
3. Respondents are directed to file an affidavit indicating therein the pendency of cases in the Board(s) and their benches. The affidavit shall also indicate as to whether the Chief Commissioner who are nominated by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to be the member of the Board can be sent back to the field or they are permanently appointed by the Board till the superannuation. The affidavit be filed within seven days.
4. List these cases on 24.09.2026.
