Bombay High Court Orders ITAT To Pronounce Pending Judgments Within The Ninety Day Limit

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay has issued a stern directive to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) following systemic failures to deliver judgments within the statutory timeframe. The bench, led by Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad, intervened after the petitioner, Rajesh R. Hemrajani, faced repeated delays that resulted in his appeal being released and reheard multiple times without resolution.

A Cycle of Procedural Stagnation

The legal dispute originated from an appeal before the ITAT, Mumbai. Under Rule 34 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, a bench is mandated to pronounce orders within 60 days of the hearing's conclusion, with an extension permitted up to 90 days only in extraordinary circumstances. The petitioner reported that his matter had been fully argued on three separate occasions, only to be released by the tribunal each time due to the failure to deliver a judgment within the 90-day window.

Legal Arguments and Judicial Scrutiny

During the proceedings, the petitioner highlighted the exhaustion of resources and the unnecessary rigours of repeated litigation. Counsel for the Income Tax Officer acknowledged the broader issue, admitting that there were instances where matters had been released after being closed for judgment on as many as four occasions.

The High Court expressed deep concern over the tribunal’s operational efficiency, emphasizing that the failure to uphold statutory timelines compromises the fundamental right to timely justice. The court underscored that procedural rules regarding judgment pronouncement are not mere suggestions but mandatory requirements designed to ensure transparency and accountability.

Key Observations

The High Court’s frustration was evident in its remarks regarding the functioning of the ITAT:

  • "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."
  • "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."

Court’s Decision and Future Implications

The Court partially allowed the petition, directing the ITAT to ensure that the judgment in the petitioner's case is delivered by August 13, 2026. Furthermore, the court issued a general mandamus to all ITAT benches to strictly adhere to Rule 34. The Prothonotary and Senior Master of the High Court have been tasked with circulating this order to all ITAT offices to ensure future compliance.

This ruling serves as a significant reminder that judicial bodies are equally bound by statutory time limits, and that procedural delays should not be permitted to frustrate the cause of justice for litigants.