Case Law

Bombay HC to ITAT: Heard Thrice, Judged Never — No Excuse for Missing the 90-Day Rule

Published 7 Aug 2026· Updated 7 Aug 2026· 4 min read

Case Law Deep Dive · Category: Case Laws · 7 August 2026

Executive Summary

On 31 July 2026, a division bench of the Bombay High Court (Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad) directed every Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) bench to strictly comply with Rule 34 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 — pronouncing orders within 60 days of the hearing’s conclusion as a rule, and never later than 90 days even in exceptional circumstances. The order came in a petition by a taxpayer whose appeal had been heard in full three separate times and released twice after the statutory pronouncement window lapsed without a decision.

Background / Facts

The petitioner, Rajesh R. Hemrajani, had his appeal before the ITAT heard and closed for orders on three occasions. On two of those occasions, the matter was released back to a fresh bench after the prescribed period for pronouncing the order under Rule 34 expired without a judgment being delivered — leaving the taxpayer’s appeal effectively unresolved despite full arguments having been heard repeatedly. He approached the Bombay High Court seeking a direction that the Tribunal decide the appeal without further delay.

The Court’s Reasoning and Directions

The Bench held that Rule 34(5) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 requires the ITAT to fix a date for pronouncement ordinarily within 60 days of the conclusion of the hearing. Where exceptional or extraordinary circumstances genuinely justify additional time, the rule permits a further period — but the outer limit is 90 days from the date the hearing concluded, with no exception beyond that point. The Court directed the specific bench hearing Hemrajani’s matter to pronounce its judgment on or before 13 August 2026, and separately issued a general direction to all ITAT benches across the country to strictly comply with the Rule 34 timeline going forward.

Why It Matters

Repeated non-pronouncement within the statutory window has been a recurring, if under-litigated, grievance in tax appellate practice — a fully-argued appeal effectively resets to zero if it lapses past the deadline, forcing taxpayers to re-argue matters already heard. This order converts a rule that has existed on paper since 1963 into an enforceable, court-monitored discipline applicable to the ITAT as an institution, not just to the bench in this one case.

Key Takeaways

Rule 34(5)(c) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 sets a 60-day ordinary limit and a 90-day absolute outer limit for pronouncing orders after a hearing concludes.
The Bombay High Court has now directed strict, tribunal-wide compliance — not case-specific relief alone.
The specific appeal in this matter has a court-mandated pronouncement deadline of 13 August 2026.
This is a procedural/administrative ruling, not a ruling on any substantive tax question — its impact is on how appeals are managed, not on any particular tax position.

Practical Implications

Practitioners with ITAT appeals that have been heard and reserved for longer than 60–90 days now have a clear, court-endorsed basis to seek a pronouncement date, or to bring the delay to the Tribunal’s or a High Court’s attention, rather than treating repeated re-listing as routine. Firms managing a docket of pending ITAT appeals should track hearing-conclusion dates specifically (not just filing or listing dates) going forward, since that is the trigger point Rule 34’s clock runs from.

Action Checklist

Identify any client appeals before ITAT that have been heard and reserved for judgment; note the exact date the hearing concluded.
Flag any matter approaching or past the 60-day mark for internal follow-up.
For matters already past 90 days without pronouncement, this order provides a citable basis to seek urgent listing or pronouncement.

Relevant Rules / Citation

Rule 34, Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (in particular sub-rule (5))
Rajesh R. Hemrajani v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Anr., Bombay High Court, order dated 31 July 2026 (Division Bench: Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge, Justice Gautam Ankhad)

FAQs

Q: Does this ruling change any tax law or tax position?
A: No — it is purely procedural, concerning the timeline within which the ITAT must pronounce a decision after hearing an appeal, not the substance of any tax dispute.

Q: What happens if an ITAT bench still misses the 90-day deadline after this ruling?
A: The order does not itself prescribe an automatic consequence, but it gives litigants a clear, High Court-endorsed basis to seek intervention where a bench fails to comply.

Q: Does this apply only to Maharashtra-jurisdiction ITAT benches?
A: The order’s general direction is addressed to “every ITAT bench” — reported coverage does not indicate any express territorial limitation, though it originates from the Bombay High Court’s own supervisory jurisdiction.

Prepared by Finoscape Editorial Team — contact@finoscape.com. Reading time: approximately 6 minutes. This case-law note is for professional and educational reference only and does not constitute legal advice; verify the operative directions against the certified order text before relying on it in any matter.