Back
Bombay High Court Orders To Strictly Follow Mandatory Pronouncement Deadlines
In a stern rebuke regarding administrative efficiency, the has issued a directive to the (ITAT) to adhere strictly to for delivering judgments. A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad emphasized that the practice of releasing matters without a final order after they have been reserved for judgment is a violation of and .
The Struggle of the Petitioner
The case arose from a petition filed by Rajesh R. Hemrajani, whose tax appeal suffered from repeated delays. The matter was initially heard and reserved for judgment on , but was released without an order after the 90-day threshold passed. A second attempt at resolution before a different bench also saw the matter reserved on , only to be released again on . Facing a potential third release after the expiration of another 90-day window on , the petitioner turned to the High Court for intervention.
Arguments and Judicial Observations
During the proceedings, the petitioner highlighted the significant burden placed on litigants who are forced to re-argue their cases multiple times due to the tribunal's administrative failures. The court expressed profound concern over the state of affairs, noting that such delays undermine public trust in the judicial process.
The Bench delivered a scathing critique of the situation, stating:
*
"Our
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."
*
"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."
Legal Mandates
At the heart of the dispute is , which governs the pronouncement of orders. The court reiterated that benches are required to pronounce orders within 60 days of the conclusion of a hearing. While an extension is permitted under "exceptional and extraordinary circumstances," the absolute outer limit for delivery is 90 days.
The Court’s Directive
The Bombay High Court has ordered the ITAT to ensure a judgment is delivered in the petitioner's case no later than . Furthermore, the court has mandated that all ITAT benches across the country must: 1. Fix a specific date for pronouncement within 60 days whenever a matter is closed for judgment. 2. Ensure delivery within 90 days in all scenarios, even under exceptional circumstances. 3. Facilitate the circulation of the court's order to all tribunal members for immediate compliance.
This ruling serves as a vital safeguard for taxpayers, reinforcing the principle that timely justice is an inherent component of the . The Prothonotary and Senior Master of the Bombay High Court has been tasked with circulating these instructions to ensure systemic reform across the tribunal network.
