The Bombay High Court has expressed strong displeasure over the repeated practice of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) releasing matters reserved for judgment without pronouncing orders within the prescribed time limit. 

Calling the situation unacceptable, the bench of  Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad directed all ITAT Benches across the country to strictly adhere to Rule 34 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, which governs the pronouncement of orders after hearings. 

The writ petition was filed by a taxpayer who had been compelled to argue the same appeal multiple times after different ITAT Benches failed to deliver judgments within the stipulated period. 

Buy Now: 80+ Income Tax Judgments | E-Magazine July 2026

The dispute arose after the petitioner’s income tax appeal, originally heard by an ITAT Bench comprising Judicial Member Rahul Chaudhary and Accountant Member Vikram Singh Yadav, was reserved for judgment on July 1, 2025. Under Rule 34(5)(c) of the ITAT Rules, the Tribunal is expected to pronounce its order within 60 days of concluding the hearing, with an extension of up to 30 additional days permitted only in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances.

However, despite the statutory timeline, no judgment was delivered. Instead, after the expiry of the permissible period, the appeal was released on October 7, 2025, requiring a fresh hearing before another Bench. 

The appeal was subsequently heard by a newly constituted Bench headed by Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang, President of the ITAT, along with Accountant Member Vikram Singh Yadav. Once again, the matter was reserved for judgment on November 26, 2025.

Despite another full hearing, the Tribunal again failed to pronounce its judgment within the prescribed period. The appeal was released on February 27, 2026, after completion of the 90-day period, forcing the taxpayer to prepare for yet another hearing before a different Bench. 

The case was eventually heard for the third time before another ITAT Bench comprising Judicial Member Beena Pillai and Accountant Member Arun Khopdia, where arguments concluded on May 13, 2026.

The petitioner approached the Bombay High Court apprehending that if judgment was not delivered before August 13, 2026—the expiry of the 90-day period—the appeal would once again be released, compelling him to argue the matter for a fourth time.

Significantly, counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department informed the High Court that there had been instances where matters had been closed for judgment and released even three or four times without any decision being pronounced. 

Taking serious exception to this practice, the Division Bench made unusually strong observations.

The Court stated that its “judicial conscience” was shocked by the information placed before it. It observed that it could not countenance a situation where matters reserved for judgment were repeatedly released without any decision despite Rule 34 mandating pronouncement within 90 days.

The Bench further questioned how long litigants could be expected to endure the rigours of prolonged litigation when appeals are repeatedly reheard solely because judgments are not delivered within the prescribed timeline. 

The Court reproduced Rule 34 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, highlighting that orders should ordinarily be pronounced immediately after hearing or on a specified future date. Where no date is fixed, every endeavour must be made to pronounce the order within 60 days. Only in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances can the period extend by another 30 days. Even then, the total period should ordinarily not exceed 90 days from conclusion of hearing. 

The Bench emphasized that these procedural safeguards exist to ensure certainty, judicial discipline and fairness to litigants.

Partly allowing the writ petition, the Bombay High Court directed the ITAT to pronounce judgment in the petitioner’s appeal on or before August 13, 2026.

More importantly, the Court issued general directions applicable to all Income Tax Appellate Tribunals across the country.

It directed every ITAT Bench to scrupulously follow Rule 34 by fixing a date for pronouncement within 60 days whenever a matter is reserved for judgment. If exceptional or extraordinary circumstances necessitate additional time, the judgment must nevertheless be delivered within the outer limit of 90 days. 

The High Court directed the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the Bombay High Court to circulate its order to all Income Tax Appellate Tribunals across the country to ensure compliance with the directions issued. 

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: DGFT Notifies 7 New SIONs for Chemical and Allied Products to Streamline Advance Authorisation