Rajesh R. Hemrajani Vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Anr (Bombay High Court)
Summary : The Bombay High Court considered a petition concerning compliance with Rule 34 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 after the petitioner’s appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was heard and reserved for judgment on three occasions but released twice without pronouncement within the prescribed timeline. The Court noted that Rule 34(5)(c) requires every endeavour to pronounce orders within 60 days of conclusion of hearing and, in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, within a further period of 30 days. Observing that the petitioner had repeatedly argued the matter without obtaining a decision, the Court partly allowed the petition and directed the Tribunal to pronounce judgment in the petitioner’s case on or before 13 August 2026. The Court further directed all Income Tax Appellate Tribunals to strictly follow Rule 34 by specifying a pronouncement date within 60 days when matters are closed for judgment and, where exceptional circumstances exist, to deliver judgments on or before the 90th day. It also directed circulation of the order to all Income Tax Appellate Tribunals for compliance.
Issue: Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) can repeatedly release matters without pronouncing judgment after they have been reserved for orders, contrary to Rule 34 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, thereby compelling litigants to argue the same appeal multiple times.
Brief facts: The petitioner’s appeal before the ITAT was heard and reserved for judgment on 1 July 2025. Under Rule 34(5)(c), the Tribunal ought to have pronounced the order within 60 days, extendable by another 30 days only in exceptional circumstances. However, no judgment was delivered and the appeal was released after 90 days.
The appeal was thereafter heard by a differently constituted Bench and again reserved on 26 November 2025. Once again, no judgment was delivered within 90 days, and the appeal was released on 27 February 2026.For the third time, another Bench heard the appeal and reserved judgment on 13 May 2026. Apprehending that the matter would again be released without a decision, compelling him to argue the case for the fourth time, the petitioner approached the Bombay High Court seeking appropriate directions.
Court’s Observations: On these facts, the question before the Court was
1) Whether repeated release of reserved matters without pronouncement violates Rule 34 of the ITAT Rules and
2) Whether the High Court should issue directions to ensure timely pronouncement of ITAT judgments.
Court’s Decision: The Bombay High Court partly allowed the writ petition. It directed:
- The ITAT shall pronounce judgment in the petitioner’s appeal on or before 13 August 2026.
- All ITAT Benches across the country must strictly comply with Rule 34. Whenever arguments are concluded, the Tribunal should specify the date of pronouncement, ordinarily within 60 days. Even in exceptional circumstances, the judgment must be delivered within 90 days. The Registry of the High Court was directed to circulate the order to all ITAT Benches for compliance.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. Respondent No.1 is the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘I’ Bench Mumbai. Considering the prayer put-forth, we do not find that a notice is necessary to be issued to the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 is the Income Tax Officer (IT) represented by Counsel.
2. An issue raised in this Petition is in relation to Rule 34 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. This Rule pertains to ‘order to be pronounced, signed and dated’. For ready reference, we are reproducing Rule 34 hereunder :-
“Order to be pronounced, signed and dated
(1) The order of the Bench shall be in writing and shall be signed and dated by the Members constituting it.
(2) The Members constituting the Bench or, in the event of their absence by retirement or otherwise, the Vice-President, Senior Vice-President or the President may mark an order as fit for publication.
(3) Where a case is referred under sub-section (4) of section 255, the order of the Member or Members to whom it is referred shall be signed and dated by him or them, as the case may be.
(4) The Bench shall pronounce its orders in the Court.
However, where the Bench is not functioning or for any other good reason the pronouncement of order in the Court is not possible or practicable, a list of such order(s) shall be prepared duly signed by the Members showing the result of the appeal and the same would be put on the Notice Board of the Bench and it shall be deemed pronouncement of the order.
(5) The pronouncement may be in any of the following manners :-
(a) The Bench may pronounce the order immediately upon the conclusion of the hearing.
(b) In case where the order is not pronounced immediately on the conclusion of the hearing, the Bench shall give a date for pronouncement.
(c) In a case where no date of pronouncement is given by the Bench, every endeavour shall be made by the Bench to pronounce the order within 60 days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do on the ground of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of the case, the Bench shall fix a future day for pronouncement of the order, and such date shall not ordinarily be a day beyond a further period of 30 days and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given on the notice board.
(6) The order of the Bench shall ordinarily be pronounced by the Members who heard the appeal. However, if the said Members or any of them is or are not available for pronouncement for any reason, then the order will be pronounced by such Member or Members as may be nominated by the President, Senior Vice-President, Vice-President, or Senior Member, as the case may be.
(7) In the case where the order is ready in every respect and can be made available to the parties, the Bench may advance the date of pronouncement and put this information on the notice board and the order shall be pronounced accordingly.
(8) In a case where the order cannot be pronounced on the date given, the date of pronouncement may be deferred, subject to sub-rule (5)(c) above, to a further date and information thereof shall be given on the notice board.”
3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner brings to our notice that an Appeal registered with the Tribunal at Mumbai was heard by a Bench (Coram: Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member and Vikram Singh Yadav, Accountant Member). The matter was closed for judgment on 1st July, 2025. Considering Rule 34, more particularly sub-rule 5(c), the judgment should have been delivered within 60 days, and only in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, within a further period of 30 days. Since this was not done by the Tribunal, the Appeal was released on 7th October, 2025.
4. The Appeal then came up before the new composition of the Bench [Coram: Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang, President and Vikram Singh Yadav, Accountant Member]. It was reserved for judgment on 26th November, 2025. Yet again, the judgment was not delivered and therefore, the matter was released on 27th February, 2026 after 90 days.
5. The Petitioner is before this Court having been exasperated by the two hearings caused in the matter and which did not fetch any result to the Petitioner. Now the said Appeal is heard by the Tribunal (Coram: Smt. Beena Pillai, Judicial Member and Shri. Arun Khopdia, Accountant Member), which is reserved on 13th May, 2026. The 90 days would expire on 13th August, 2026.
6. The reason why the Petitioner has approached this Court is being apprehensive that if now the matter is not decided, it will again be released on 13th August, 2026 and then thereafter the Petitioner would have to re-argue before the Tribunal for the 4th The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 submits that there have been instances when the matters have been closed and released even on 3 or 4 occasions.
7. Our judicial conscience is shocked by the above stated information. It cannot be countenanced that a matter closed for judgment, is released without a judgment even when Rule 34 mandates a decision within 90 days. How far would the litigants tolerate the rigours of litigation, when a Appeal is released on multiple occasions. In the present case, the Appeal has been finally argued on the 3rd occasion, and the time-line is to expire shortly. We have taken a serious note of this aspect.
8. In view of the above, this Petition is partly allowed with the following directions :-
A) The IT Appellate Tribunal shall ensure that the judgment in the Petitioner’s case is delivered on or before 13th August, 2026. A copy of this order obtained from the official website of the Bombay High Court shall be placed before the Tribunal by the Petitioner, as well as, by Respondent No.2.
B) We direct that all the Income Tax Appellate Tribunals shall scrupulously follow Rule 34 and ensure that matters which are heard and closed for Judgment, shall also mention the date for pronouncement which shall be within the period of 60 days. A judgment should be delivered within the said period. If on account of exceptional circumstances or extra-ordinary reasons justifying further time being required by the Tribunal, the judgment shall be delivered on or before the 90th day by the concerned Bench.
9. We direct the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court to circulate this order to all the Income Tax Appellate Tribunals, for compliance.
