Delhi High Court Calls ITAT's Indefinite Adjournment After Reserving Judgment 'Sheer Wastage Of Time'

The Delhi High Court has reprimanded the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for adjourning an appeal sine die after the matter had already been heard and reserved for judgment.

For context, although Petitioner's appeal before the ITAT had been heard at length and reserved for orders on September 3, 2025, the Tribunal subsequently listed the matter again and, on January 19, 2026, adjourned it sine die.

This was done on the ground that a similar issue decided by the Tribunal in another case was pending consideration before the High Court in an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act.

A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar held that such a course was unjustified in the absence of any stay by the High Court in a connected matter.

Petitioner had argued that the mere admission of a tax appeal by the High Court, without any interim stay on the Tribunal's earlier decision, could not justify indefinite adjournment of a reserved matter, especially when its stay application before the Tribunal had already been rejected.

Accepting the contention, the High Court observed that the effect and operation of the ITAT order had not been stayed.

“Hence, we are of the view that simply because appeal has been admitted, the Tribunal ought not to have adjourned the matter sine-die, more so, when the stay petition had been rejected or if it so chose, it should have protected the interest of the assessee,” the Court said.

It added, “Such approach of the Tribunal has led to the grievance of the petitioner-Trust also being aggravated. It has led to sheer wastage of the time and energy of the Tribunal and the assessee and its counsel who have argued the matter at length.”

As such, the court set aside the ITAT's order to the extent it adjourned the appeal sine die, and directed it to decide the appeal on merits.

Recently, the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant expressed serious displeasure with the functioning of Tribunals in the country, going to the extent of terming them a "liability" and a "mess".

The CJI revealed that he got reliable information that the technical members of an important financial Tribunal in the country were not writing any judgment, and were even outsourcing the writing of judgments; something which was unheard of in the judiciary.

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh with Advocates Abishek Jebaraj, A. Reyana Shruti and Katayani

For Respondent: Zoheb Hossain, SPL. Counsel, Vipul Agrawal, SSC, Sanjeev Menon, Sakshi Sairwal and Akshat Singh, JSCs and Advocates Harshita Kotru and Gaoraang Ranjan