Bombay High Court Directs ITAT to Pronounce Orders Within 60 Days

What the Bombay High Court ordered

The High Court directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to pronounce the judgment in the taxpayer case on or before 13 August 2026.

It also issued a wider direction to every ITAT bench. When a hearing is completed and the matter is closed for judgment, the Tribunal should fix a pronouncement date within 60 days and deliver the order within that period.

Where exceptional or extraordinary circumstances genuinely require more time, the judgment must be delivered on or before the 90th day. The High Court directed that its order be circulated to all ITAT benches for compliance.

Why the taxpayer approached the High Court

The taxpayer had already argued the same appeal before the ITAT on three occasions. The first two hearings did not result in a judgment within the period stated in Rule 34, and the appeal was released for a fresh hearing each time.

After the third hearing, the taxpayer feared that the 90-day period would again expire and that he would have to argue the appeal for a fourth time. He therefore filed a writ petition seeking timely pronouncement of the order.

The High Court treated the repeated hearings and releases as a serious burden on a litigant who had already completed arguments more than once.

First ITAT hearing and release

The appeal was first heard by a bench consisting of Judicial Member Rahul Chaudhary and Accountant Member Vikram Singh Yadav.

Arguments concluded and the matter was closed for judgment on 1 July 2025. No decision was pronounced within the Rule 34 period, and the appeal was released on 7 October 2025.

The release meant that the taxpayer had to prepare and argue the appeal again before a differently constituted bench.

Second ITAT hearing and release

The appeal was then heard by a reconstituted bench consisting of Justice C. V. Bhadang, retired, President of the ITAT and Accountant Member Vikram Singh Yadav.

The second bench reserved the appeal for judgment on 26 November 2025. Once again, no judgment was delivered within 90 days.

The matter was released on 27 February 2026. The taxpayer was therefore left without a decision even after completing a second full hearing.

Third ITAT hearing

A third bench consisting of Judicial Member Beena Pillai and Accountant Member Arun Khopdia heard the appeal and reserved it for judgment on 13 May 2026.

The 90-day period was due to expire on 13 August 2026. The taxpayer approached the High Court before that date because he feared another release without a judgment.

The High Court directed the Tribunal to ensure that the order was pronounced on or before 13 August 2026.

What Rule 34 requires

Rule 34 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 governs how Tribunal orders are pronounced, signed and dated.

A bench may pronounce an order immediately after the hearing. If it does not do so, it may give a future date for pronouncement.

Where no date is initially given, every effort should be made to pronounce the order within 60 days from conclusion of the hearing. If exceptional and extraordinary circumstances make this impracticable, a further date may be fixed, which should not ordinarily go beyond an additional 30 days.

The normal structure is therefore 60 days, with a further 30 days only for a genuinely exceptional case.

Why repeated release of the appeal was unacceptable

An appeal that is released without judgment must ordinarily be heard again. This repeats arguments, documents, preparation and professional costs for both sides.

It also delays finality. A taxpayer cannot act on the result, pursue a further appeal, obtain a refund or close the disputed tax position until the Tribunal passes an order.

The High Court took serious note of information that some matters had been closed and released three or four times. It held that the procedure under Rule 34 must be followed and that a litigant should not repeatedly suffer the burden of re-arguing the same appeal.

Directions apply to every ITAT bench

The direction was not limited to the Mumbai bench or only to the appeal of Rajesh R. Hemrajani.

The High Court ordered all Income Tax Appellate Tribunals to follow Rule 34 scrupulously. Matters closed for judgment should mention a pronouncement date within 60 days, and judgment should ordinarily be delivered within that period.

The Prothonotary and Senior Master of the Bombay High Court was directed to circulate the order to all ITAT benches.

What this ruling does not decide

The High Court did not decide the merits of the underlying income tax appeal. It did not determine whether the taxpayer or the Income Tax Department was correct on the disputed tax issue.

The order deals with timely pronouncement after an ITAT hearing has concluded. The final merits remain for the Tribunal bench that heard the appeal.

A delay beyond 60 or 90 days should not automatically be treated as a decision in favour of either party. The appropriate procedural remedy depends on the facts, the status of the appeal and the orders passed by the Tribunal.

Practical steps when an ITAT order is delayed

• Record the exact date on which the hearing concluded and the appeal was reserved for judgment.
• Preserve the order sheet, hearing acknowledgement and details of the bench that heard the appeal.
• Check the official ITAT pronouncement list and order portal regularly.
• Calculate 60 days from the conclusion of hearing and note the 90th day separately.
• If the normal period expires, submit a respectful written request for early pronouncement through the proper Tribunal process.
• Keep proof of every representation and acknowledgement.
• If the matter is released, obtain the release order and confirm the next hearing date promptly.
• Where repeated hearings or serious delay cause prejudice, obtain case-specific legal advice on the appropriate remedy.
• Do not stop complying with an existing demand, stay condition or other order merely because the Tribunal judgment is delayed.

Why the decision matters for taxpayers

ITAT is the final fact-finding authority in the income tax appellate system. Its findings often determine whether further appeal on a question of law is required.

Timely orders help taxpayers and the Department understand their rights, calculate tax exposure and pursue the next remedy within limitation.

The judgment reinforces that procedural efficiency is part of fair adjudication. A completed hearing should lead to a reasoned decision within the framework prescribed by the Tribunal rules.

Key takeaways

• The Bombay High Court order is dated 31 July 2026 and was uploaded on 3 August 2026.
• The case is Rajesh R. Hemrajani v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and another.
• The taxpayer had argued the same ITAT appeal three times.
• Two earlier benches released the appeal without pronouncing a judgment within 90 days.
• The current ITAT bench was directed to pronounce judgment by 13 August 2026.
• All ITAT benches were directed to fix pronouncement within 60 days after conclusion of hearing.
• Only exceptional or extraordinary circumstances justify using the additional period up to the 90th day.
• The ruling concerns timely pronouncement and does not decide the underlying tax dispute.

Conclusion

Rajesh R. Hemrajani is an important procedural ruling for every taxpayer with a reserved ITAT appeal. The Bombay High Court made it clear that repeated release of an appeal without judgment places an unfair burden on litigants and is inconsistent with Rule 34.

Taxpayers and representatives should maintain a clear record of the hearing date, monitor the pronouncement period and use the proper process to request a timely order where necessary. At the same time, any substantive tax obligations or stay conditions must continue to be followed until a competent authority changes them.