Tribunals were meant to deliver speedy and expert justice. Assess how far tax tribunals in India have met this objective.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was set up in 1941 as India's first tribunal. Its job was to reduce the workload of courts and give speedy, expert decisions on tax disputes [1]. Eight decades on, tax tribunals have largely delivered expertise, but speed is still missing.

Where the objective has been met: expertise

• Expert benches: Section 252, Income-tax Act, 1961 puts Judicial Members and Accountant Members on the same bench. Accountant Members are Chartered Accountants with 10 years' practice or senior Income-tax Service officers, so each bench combines legal and accounting knowledge [2].
• Final fact-finding filter: an appeal from the ITAT goes to the High Court only on questions of law. This keeps routine disputes over facts away from constitutional courts [1].
• Check on inflated tax demands: the department wins only about 27% of its appeals at the ITAT [3]. In October 2026, the ITAT ruled largely for Maruti Suzuki across eight years, an estimated ₹13,000-crore relief [4].

Where it falls short: speed

• Delay: Maruti's oldest disputed year, FY2013-14, was decided only in 2026. Most of the amount at stake was interest that had built up over the years [4].
• Backlog: the ITAT had 91,643 pending cases as of January 2018 [1].
• Automatic appeals: the department appeals about 88% of the ITAT orders it loses, even though it rarely wins [3]. The Economic Survey 2017-18 found its success rate below 30% at all three levels and urged it to limit its appeals [5].
• Long appeal ladder: a case can move from CIT(A) to ITAT to High Court to Supreme Court. Each stage adds years, which keeps tax revenue tied up and slows investment [5].
• Independence: the executive controls appointments and service conditions under Section 184, Finance Act, 2017 [2]. The Supreme Court has held that executive-dominated selection of tribunal members undermines judicial independence [1].

Verdict: the expertise objective is largely met. The speed objective is met only partly.

Tax tribunals are therefore competent at deciding facts, but slow. The tribunals' original promise can be restored through:

• a litigation policy that raises the minimum amount needed to file an appeal;
• Faceless Assessment, judged by whether fewer demands are later overturned on appeal;
• Vivad se Vishwas and Advance Pricing Agreements;
• timely, independent appointments.

These steps would bring back the 1941 aim of speedy, expert justice and give a growing economy the tax certainty it needs.