Case Law Details
Buckeye Trust Vs Registrar (Karnataka High Court)
Karnataka High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by the assessee seeking a direction to defer income-tax appellate proceedings before the ITAT Mumbai until the President of the Tribunal decided the assessee’s transfer application. The petitioner had raised serious concerns regarding an earlier ITAT order allegedly generated using Artificial Intelligence, which was subsequently recalled. The petitioner contended that since the Judicial Member who authored the AI-driven order intended to hear the case again, it would give rise to “apparent bias,” violating the principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. On 19.08.2025, the High Court had granted an interim stay on further proceedings before the concerned Judicial Member, while clarifying that the stay would not restrict the ITAT President from considering the transfer application. Pursuant to this direction, the President of the ITAT reassigned the matter to a different bench. In view of this development, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that the writ petition had become unnecessary and could be disposed of, while reserving liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies if any adverse order was passed in the future. Accepting this submission, the Karnataka High Court disposed of the petition as infructuous, noting that the grievance no longer survived since the case had already been transferred to another bench.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:
“a. Issue a writ of mandamus or an appropriate direction to Respondent No.1 to defer the proceedings vide Annexure-D ITA: 1051/24 dtd:30-12-24 until the disposal of the petition pending President before Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai, vide Annexure J ITA-1051/2024 in the interest of justice and equity.
b. Any other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Heard Sri A. Mahesh Chowdhary, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Pramod B., learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri M. Dilip, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 AND 3.
3. Owing to the submissions made on 19.08.2025, this Court had passed the following order:
“Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.K. Shashi Kiran Shetty appearing for the petitioner.
The petitioner is before this Court on a very strange circumstance. An adjudication of the rights of the petitioner takes place before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at the “A” Bench: Bangalore. The order is appended to the petition. The order prima facie indicates that it is Artificial intelligence driven. The indication is vindicated, by the subsequent order recalling the order as
it was so rendered by the members of the Tribunal or before the Tribunal.
After the recall of the said order, it transpires that certain members have recused themselves as they were part of the order that was passed which is allegedly Artificial Intelligence driven. The Judicial Member who is said to be the author of the order that was recalled on an allegedly driven by Artificial Intelligence to a large extent, is now wanting to hear the matter. Learned Senior Counsel submits that, an application was filed to post the matter before any other Tribunal of the jurisdiction. The said application is pending consideration before the President. The learned Senior Counsel submits that if the concerned Judicial Member is permitted to go on and proceeding to pass orders, it would be hit by apparent bias or the concept that ‘justice must not only be done but seem to have been done‘.
In that light, further proceedings before the Tribunal shall remain stayed.
Learned counsel Sri.Jeevan J Neeralgi is directed to accept notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
The petitioner to serve set of papers upon the aforesaid counsel forthwith.
List on 21.08.2025 in Preliminary Hearing.
Interim order restraining the Judicial Member from hearing the matter will not come in the way of the President considering the application so filed by these petitioners seeking transfer of the proceeding to any other Tribunal.”
Pursuant to the afore-quoted order, the matter is assigned to a different bench by the President of the Tribunal. With placing the matter before a different bench, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition would be disposed as having become unnecessary, reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail of such remedy before the appropriate fora, if an order would be passed against him.
4. In the light of the said submission, reserving such liberty, the petition stands disposed as having become infructuous.
Author Bio
