Delhi High Court Suggests Intimating Hearing Date Within 15 Days Of Income Tax Advance Ruling Application Filing

The Delhi High Court has suggested that the Board for Advance Rulings under the Income-tax Act, 2025, explore a mechanism to inform applicants of their next hearing date within 15 days of filing an application, observing that applicants cannot be kept in the dark about the status of their advance ruling applications

The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Aditi Choudhary observed that applicants seeking advance tax rulings should at least be informed of the probable hearing date so that they can plan their transactions and investments accordingly.

"Keeping an applicant absolutely in the dark in the present era of information, technology and transparency, cannot be countenanced," the Court observed.

It added that the Board should ensure that some date is fixed in each application to remove uncertainty surrounding its consideration.

"The applicants in order to have certainty of the transactions which they want to undertake in India can atleast have an assessment of the probable time of disposal, if not the fate of their application," the Court said.

The observations came while disposing of a petition filed by FootballCo Intermediate Cooperatief U.A., a Netherlands-based entity, seeking directions for expeditious consideration of its application pending before the Board for Advance Rulings-I, Delhi.

Petitioner had filed its application on July 3, 2026, under Section 384 of the Income Tax Act, 2025. It approached the High Court alleging that despite repeated communications, the Board had neither passed a formal order admitting or rejecting its application nor communicated any hearing date.

It argued that Section 384(6) of the Income Tax Act, 2025, required the Board to decide an application within six months of its receipt. According to the petitioner, the use of the expression "shall" in the provision made the statutory timeline mandatory.

Opposing the petition, the Revenue argued that the proceedings were premature since the statutory six-month period had not yet expired. It further contended that the use of the word "shall" did not automatically make the prescribed timeline mandatory.

The High Court declined to issue a direction requiring the Board to decide the petitioner's application within a specified period, noting that two months were still available under the statutory timeline.

It observed that directions requiring quasi-judicial bodies to dispose of matters within a fixed period could not be issued without considering the pendency of other applications and their relative urgency.

"Unless the corresponding pendency of the applications and their competing urgency before the Board is known to the Court, no sweeping direction can be issued to a quasi-judicial body like the Board or Tribunal, to decide an application or appeal in a specified time period," the Court observed.

It however expressed concern that the petitioner's application had not even been formally admitted or rejected despite several reminders.

It observed that even if the six-month timeline prescribed under Section 384(6) were construed as directory, efforts should be made by the Union Government to ensure expeditious disposal of applications.

It however added that atleast a probable date of hearing should be intimated to an applicant immediately on filing of the application so that it can arrange its affairs accordingly.

It therefore suggested that the Board's Nodal Officer explore the possibility of establishing a mechanism through which applicants could be informed of their next hearing date within 15 days of filing an application under Section 384.

"Though, we refrain from issuing any direction to the Board as prayed by the petitioner, we dispose of the petition, however, with a suggestion that the Nodal Officer of the Board must try to explore the possibility of creating a mechanism/facility so that as and when an application under Section 384 of the Act of 2025 is filed, the concerned applicant is intimated within fifteen days about the next date of hearing of the application," the Court observed.

For Petitioner: Advocates Dhruv Janssen Sanghavi, Ishita Farsaiya, Anirudh Srinivas, Vanshika Taneja and Ichchhit Goswami.

For Respondent: Senior Standing Counsel Indruj Singh Rai, Junior Standing Counsel Rahul Singh and Rahul G. Tanwani, and Advocates Gaurav Kumar and Nandhaa Kishore.