S. 255 : Income tax Appellate Tribunal–Additional premises for the functioning of Court Rooms–Interim order of the High Court dated 28th June, 2000 allotting the premises to ITAT for the functioning of additional five court rooms is affirmed [S. 254, Art. 226]
The ITAT Bar Association Mumbai has filed a PIL before the Bombay High Court for allotting the premises for an additional five Benches of the ITAT. The Honourable Court, by an interim order dated 28th June 2000, directed the All India Radio to hand over the possession of the premises to the ITAT. The All India Radio has filed an SLP before the Supreme Court, No. 15549/ 2000, order dated February 18, 2002. The SLP was dismissed in view of a consensus reached between the learned counsel for the parties. The Honourable Bombay High Court by order dated July 3, 2025 held that as the ad. interim relief, the Benches were functioning for the past 16 years the and the ad-interim order was also upheld by the Supreme Court, as the Special Leave Petition was dismissed as well as on account of efflux of time, no further orders are required to be passed in the writ petition.
ITAT Bar Association & Anr. v. Secretary of I&B & Ors. WP 624 of 1999 dated July 3, 2025 (Bom)(HC).

Brief note on the accommodation of Court premises of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), the same was challenged in a Writ petition, which is pending for final hearing before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.

An additional 5 Benches of ITAT were sanctioned for Mumbai with effect from April 01, 1997, by order dated March 05, 1998. The then Hon’ble President of the ITAT, in his letter dated August 07, 1997, addressed to the Ministry of Law and Justice, narrated the necessity for the accommodation of the Tribunal in the same building instead of a separate space for the new Benches that were being constituted for administration, efficiency and effective justice delivery.

The ITAT Bar Association Mumbai (Petitioners) believed that the location of the Old CGO building, which housed the then-existing Benches of the ITAT, was the location where the additional Benches of the ITAT should be constituted, a view shared by all the stakeholders in the functioning of the ITAT.

The Petitioners addressed a letter to the then Hon’ble Finance Minister on the above subject, the reply to which conveyed to the Petitioners that a new building was being made for All India Radio (AIR) and if AIR were to vacate the same, the claim of the ITAT would be considered. After various representations, the State Government also wrote a letter to the Central Government requesting them to consider the demand of the petitioners, etc.

The AIR (Vividh Bharati) shifted their office to Borivali; however, they were unwilling to accommodate the ITAT and wished to retain possession of the said premises, saying that the premises were not vacated and were in use.

 The above-mentioned writ was filed in the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.

 The matter was heard and adjourned time and again during the stage for interim relief in hopes of an amicable resolution and to make certain inquiries.

 It was found out by the Hon’ble High Court after inspection that the said premises were lying vacant. The estate manager was instructed to seal the said premises vide order dated May 03, 2000.

 The Court took on a record vide order dated June 07, 2000, a letter from the Minister for I&B had in his handwriting passed an order directing Vividhbharti to hand over vacant possession to CPWD so that the Urban Development Ministry may allot the same to the ITAT.

 An order from the Minister of Urban Affairs and Employment dated January 19, 1999, was produced in court in which the Hon’ble Minister observed that the need of the ITAT was more than that of AIR and hence, the secretary concerned was directed to speak to the Ministers concerned. The Learned ASG in court stated that the Hon’ble Urban Affairs Minister had allotted the premises to the ITAT. The Hon’ble Court also took notice of the fact that the said premises were vacant and sealed as per the prior order and further ordered the Estate manager to hand over the premises to the ITAT for purposes of establishment of the ITAT, subject to the result of the WP vide order dated June 28, 2000.

 The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting filed an SLP before the Honourable Supreme Court.

 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in an order dated February 18, 2002, observed that the parties were amenable to maintaining the status quo regarding physical possession subject to the result of the writ petition.

 The Courtrooms were built in the said vacant premises, and they were inaugurated on February 16, 2001, by the Honourable Law Minister Shri Arun Jaitley.

 Since 2001, the ITAT has been operating from the said premises for hearing Income Tax Appeals.

 The WP was up for hearing in the Hon’ble Bombay High Court for a final hearing on October 12, 2017, and the Respondents were directed to make a statement on the next date of hearing whether the Tribunal could function in the concerned premises and whether the Rule could be made absolute in terms of the interim relief.

 The matter came for a hearing on March 29, 2019, and due to paucity of time, the matter was adjourned to April 15, 2019, April 24, 2019 and 14 June 14, 2019.

The Honourable Court, by order dated July 3, 2025 held that as the ad. interim relief, the Benches were functioning for the past 16 years the and the ad interim order was also upheld by the Supreme Court, as the Special Leave Petition was dismissed as well as on account of efflux of time, no further orders are required to be passed in the writ petition.