Bombay High Court: While considering a writ petition complaining of repeated release of an appeal by different Benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) after reserving it for judgment, the Division Bench of Ravindra V. Ghuge, ACJ., and Gautam A. Ankhad, J., held that strict compliance with Rule 34, Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (ITAT Rules) is mandatory and directed all ITATs to ensure pronouncement of judgments within the statutory period contemplated under the Rule.
Also Read: SC’s comprehensive directions for procedural timelines for judgment pronouncement
Background
The controversy arose from an appeal pending before ITAT, Mumbai, which was heard and reserved for judgment on 1 July 2025 by a Bench consisting of a Judicial Member and an Accountant Member. According to the petitioner, Rule 34(5)(c), ITAT Rules required the judgment to be delivered within 60 days and only in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, within a further period of 30 days. However, no judgment was delivered, and the appeal came to be released on 7 October 2025. Subsequently, the matter was placed before a newly composed Bench comprising the President and an Accountant Member. The appeal was again reserved for judgment on 26 November 2025. Yet again, the judgment was not delivered within the stipulated period, and the matter was released on 27 February 2026 after expiry of 90 days.
Thereafter, the appeal was heard for a third time by another Bench and reserved on 13 May 2026. The petitioner approached the High Court apprehending that, if the Tribunal again failed to pronounce judgment within the prescribed period, the appeal would once more be released on 13 August 2026, and the petitioner would be compelled to argue the matter for a fourth time. On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel submitted that there had been instances where matters had been closed and released even on 3 or 4 occasions.
Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that its “judicial conscience is shocked” by the situation placed before it. The Court highlighted that it could not be countenanced that a matter closed for judgment is released without delivery of a judgment when Rule 34 itself mandates a decision within the prescribed 90-day period. The Court questioned how far litigants could be expected to tolerate the rigours of litigation when appeals are repeatedly released after being reserved for judgment. The Court noted that the appeal had already been finally argued on the third occasion and that the statutory timeline was about to expire.
The Court, while partly allowing the petition, directed ITAT to ensure that the judgment in the petitioner’s appeal is delivered on or before 13 August 2026. The Court further directed both sides to place a copy of the High Court’s order before the Tribunal.
The Court also issued general directions to all ITATs to scrupulously follow Rule 34, ITAT Rules and ensure that matters that are heard and closed for judgment mention a date for pronouncement within 60 days and deliver judgments within that period. The Court clarified that where exceptional circumstances or extraordinary reasons justify further time, the judgment must nevertheless be delivered on or before the 90th day by the Bench concerned.
[[Rajesh R. Hemrajani v. ITAT, Writ Petition (L) No. 10271 of 2026, decided on 31-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Dr. Dhruv Janssen Sanghavi a/w Anirudh Srinivasan i/by Prajyot Sawardekar.
For Respondents: Subir Kumar with Ashita Aggarwal.