The Bombay High Court, in Rajesh R. Hemrajani v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Anr., dealt with repeated failure of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, to pronounce an order after the assessee’s appeal had been heard and reserved for judgment on multiple occasions. The Court expressed serious concern over the resulting repeated hearings and directed strict compliance with Rule 34 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. The judgment was delivered on 31 July 2026 by a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad.
Background of the Case
The petition arose from an appeal pending before the Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was initially heard by a Bench comprising Judicial Member Rahul Chaudhary and Accountant Member Vikram Singh Yadav and was closed for judgment on 1 July 2025.
Rule 34(5)(c) requires every endeavour to be made to pronounce an order within 60 days from conclusion of hearing where no date of pronouncement has been given. Where exceptional and extraordinary circumstances make this impracticable, the Bench may fix a further date, ordinarily not beyond another 30 days.
As the order was not pronounced within the prescribed period, the appeal was released on 7 October 2025.
The appeal was then reheard before another Bench comprising Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang, President, and Accountant Member Vikram Singh Yadav. It was again reserved for judgment on 26 November 2025, but no judgment was delivered and the matter was once again released on 27 February 2026, after expiry of 90 days.
Thereafter, the appeal was heard for the third time, before Judicial Member Beena Pillai and Accountant Member Arun Khopdia, and was reserved on 13 May 2026. The 90-day period was due to expire on 13 August 2026. Concerned that the matter might again be released and require arguments for a fourth time, the petitioner approached the Bombay High Court.
Issue Before the Bombay High Court
The principal issue was whether an appeal repeatedly heard and reserved for judgment by the ITAT could be released without pronouncement of an order despite the time framework prescribed under Rule 34 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
The case therefore concerned not the substantive income-tax liability of the petitioner but the appellate procedure governing pronouncement of orders by the ITAT.
Bombay High Court’s Observations
The High Court took serious note of the fact that the petitioner had already argued the appeal on three occasions because earlier Benches had failed to deliver judgments within the stipulated period.
The Court observed that such a situation could not be countenanced when Rule 34 itself mandates a timeline for pronouncement. It specifically expressed concern over the burden imposed upon litigants when a fully argued appeal is repeatedly released without a decision.
The Court emphasized that ordinarily a judgment should be delivered within 60 days. Only where exceptional circumstances or extraordinary reasons justify additional time can pronouncement extend beyond 60 days, and even then the judgment is required to be delivered on or before the 90th day.
Directions Issued by the High Court
The writ petition was partly allowed.
The Bombay High Court directed the ITAT to ensure that the judgment in the petitioner’s pending appeal was delivered on or before 13 August 2026. Both the petitioner and the Income Tax Officer were directed to place a copy of the High Court’s order before the Tribunal.
More importantly, the Court issued a general direction applicable to all Income Tax Appellate Tribunals to scrupulously follow Rule 34.
The High Court directed that when matters are heard and closed for judgment, the Tribunal should also specify a date of pronouncement falling within the 60-day period. Judgment should ordinarily be delivered within that period. Where exceptional or extraordinary circumstances legitimately require additional time, the concerned Bench must deliver its judgment on or before the 90th day.
The Prothonotary and Senior Master of the Bombay High Court was further directed to circulate the order to all Income Tax Appellate Tribunals for compliance.
Legal Principle Emerging from the Judgment
The decision reinforces that the timelines contemplated by Rule 34 are an important part of orderly appellate adjudication. A matter that has been fully argued and reserved for judgment should not repeatedly return for fresh hearing merely because an order was not pronounced within time.
The ruling therefore places institutional responsibility upon ITAT Benches to manage reserved matters in accordance with Rule 34 and protects litigants against the unnecessary hardship of repeated hearings arising from delayed pronouncement.
Why This Judgment Is Important
The judgment has significance beyond the individual petition because the Bombay High Court expressly extended its directions to all ITAT Benches.
For advocates, Chartered Accountants, tax consultants and litigants appearing before the Tribunal, the ruling provides an important procedural safeguard where a matter remains reserved for an excessive period. It also underlines that exceptional circumstances may justify extending the normal 60-day period, but the outer limit contemplated by Rule 34 must be respected.
