“Artificial intelligence driven”: Karnataka HC refuses to Step in as ITAT President already reassigned Matter [Read Order]
The petitioner argued that this raised a serious apprehension of bias, violating the principle that justice must not only be done but also appear to be done.
Artificial intelligence driven - Taxscan
Artificial intelligence driven - Taxscan
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru recently disposed of a writ petition filed by Buckeye Trust challenging the proceedings before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), after the ITAT President reassigned the matter to a different bench.
The petitioner had alleged that a previous order of the Tribunal appeared to be “artificial intelligence driven,” raising concerns over judicial propriety and bias.
The petitioner, Buckeye Trust, represented by Sri A. Mahesh Chowdhary, sought a direction to defer proceedings in ITA No. 1051/2024 before the Bengaluru Bench of the ITAT. The Trust contended that the original order of the Tribunal-since recalled-was allegedly “AI-driven,” and that the Judicial Member involved in that order had recused himself but later expressed intent to hear the case again.
The petitioner argued that this raised a serious apprehension of bias, violating the principle that justice must not only be done but also appear to be done.
On 19 August 2025, the High Court had issued an interim stay, directing that the Judicial Member concerned refrain from hearing the matter until the ITAT President considered the petitioner’s transfer application.
Justice Nagaprasanna noted that pursuant to the Court’s interim order, the President of the ITAT had reassigned the matter to another bench. In light of this development, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that the writ petition no longer survived and could be closed, reserving liberty to approach appropriate fora should an adverse order be passed in the future.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over the single-judge bench, observed that the reassignment of the case by the ITAT President rendered the petition infructuous and therefore did not warrant further interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition as infructuous, granting the petitioner such liberty.
The Karnataka High Court refrained from further intervention, effectively acknowledging the administrative decision of the ITAT President to reassign the matter.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
