New ITAT Rules For Filing Appeals And Seeking Adjournment

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
4th Floor, Prathishtha Bhavan, 101 Maharshi Karwe Marg,
Mumbai – 400 020

20th May, 2015.


All applications for adjournment shall be filed atleast three weeks in advance, except in exceptional cases for which reasons for filing them beyond that period shall be clearly stated in the application. The application will be filed in duplicate and the copy served in advance on the opposite party. In case the opposite party writes “not opposed” on the application, it shall be taken up in Chamber, otherwise, all applications shall be listed before the Court along with the case. All applications shall clearly state the grounds on which adjournment is sought and shall be supported by an affidavit of the party seeking adjournment.


[Justice (Retd.) Dev Darshan Sud]

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
4th Floor, Prathishtha Bhavan, 101 Maharshi Karwe Marg,
Mumbai – 400 020

14th May, 2015.


Henceforth all appeals filed in the Tribunal by the Department or assessee shall contain:

(a) Index sheet clearly indicating the documents filed.

(b) Appeal paper book shall be paged in continuation.


[Justice (Retd.) Dev Darshan Sud]

60 comments on “New ITAT Rules For Filing Appeals And Seeking Adjournment
  1. VN KULKARNI says:


  2. LAKSHMA says:

    Dear Readers,
    Exceptions should be hospitalisation of legal counsel or the party, death of the near and dear one’s otherwise in view of the speedy disposal of the pending cases, this is a welcome change.

    Lakshmana B.R

  3. B. N. Mahapatra (Advocate) says:

    I am thankful to you for your e-mail dtd.21/05/2015 seeking suggestion in respect of the order of the President, ITAT on 20/05/2015 with regard to adjournment of ITAT cases and filing of appeals. So far as filing of appeal is concerned it seems nothing unreasonable but so far as the adjournment is concerned it is really an epoch making order. 3 weeks time is a very long and nobody can predict the situation 3 weeks before. Application for adjournment should not exceed more than 7 days time and equally the departments should be asked to follow the same procedure. The AIFTP must resist such order and meet the President through the ITAT Bar Association’s Co-Ordination Committee. The excusable case in exceptional circumstances has also not been spelt out in the order. The AIFTP must resist such order from implementation. If required we should file a Writ in the larger interest of the members.

  4. Dr.Y.P.Trivedi, Senior Advocate says:

    I have seen the order of Learned President Justice (Retd) Dev Darshan Sud. In this connection I have the following suggestions:-

    1. For those who want adjournment without remaining personally present in the Court, the suggested procedure can be deployed and adjournment may be given well in advance. But for those who wish to obtain adjournment on grounds which may arise after the three weeks period, they should be allowed to move the Court for adjournment provided they appear personally in the Court. Moreover, a distinction should be drawn between Adjournments and Adjustments for a day or two.

    2. There should be a consistent policy of the Tribunal for granting adjournment. If the earlier years’ appeals are pending then some members insist that the later years appeals involving the same point should be adjourned till the earlier years appeals are be disposed off first. And some members insist that the earlier years appeals involving the same issue can be ignored and the later years appeals, if they are fixed for hearing should be heard in the normal course and
    the earlier years appeals should follow those orders. This contradictory views should be resolved.

    3. In the Tribunal, there is no vacation. If during school vacation, some Counsel has gone with Family on a holiday, some members grant
    adjournments while some members don’t. There must be a consistent Policy on this.

    4. The orders written after the lapse of more than 15 days are very often subjected to rectification applications because quite often the arguments canvassed are not reproduced and the Judgments cited are ignored. Obvious errors can creep in such orders.

    It is therefore respectfully submitted that no Judgment should be delayed for more than two weeks. The Tribunals should follow as far as possible the practice of the High Court where the Judgments are delivered immediately after the arguments are completed.

    Thanking You,

    Yours Truly,


  5. Manoj Munshi, Advocate says:

    When the need of seeking Adjournment arises ? certainly not in so advance and the adjournment is not a planned activity of any practitioner, it normally arises in couple of days or a day before the hearing. The adjournments are sought due to some reasons unavoidable to the counsel. The counsel may go out of station or may engage in some other work. No one can predict the illness after three week and each time even for cough and cold, medical certificate and affidavit would be too harsh condition.

    My experience is that mostly DR seeking adjournment due to over work, listing of many cases, files not available etc. These are certainly not the exceptional circumstances.

    More so, when you go prepared with the case, bench adjourns the case on one or the other reason. Is not the adjournment sought by the bench?

    I, request the President to reconsider his order on adjournment.

    I appreciate the second order of the President requiring the parties to file Index and pagination. This would improve efficiency of the bench and bar.

  6. N. M. RANKA, Senior Advocate says:

    1. I feel filing of adjournment application before three weeks,would be too early. It needs to be reduced to one week.

    2. Second condition is usual to file in duplicate with no objection.

    3. Requirement to support by an affidavit is rigorous, unnecessary and impractical. Such condition is not under civil, revenue or criminal or other taxation laws. It may be supported by supporting material like medical certificate in case of illness; wedding card in case of marriage in the family or close relation; counsel pre-occupied etc.

    The Committee should make representation and meet the President along with past presidents of I.T.A.T. Bar Association, Mumbai.

  7. H. N. Motiwalla says:

    After perusing the aforesaid order, I find that to seek the adjournment before three weeks would be very difficult because many times the client do not submit the requisite paper in time for preparing the paper book.

    The aforesaid order also does not state whether the said order is effective immediately for from any particular date. This is because many adjournments would be taken before implementation of this order i.e. within three weeks from the dare of order.

    Further to obtain affidavit each and every time from the client would be difficult for the Counsels.

    Many time before three weeks benches are not listed and therefore it is not possible to seek the adjournment unless the bench is listed

    Whether the aforesaid criteria would simplify or complicate the matter and whether it would be with the object of the Prime Minister in respect of “Ease of doing business”.

    Hence, I request you to represent strongly to the President of Income tax Appellate Tribunal to withdraw or modify the order.

  8. Arvind Agrawal, Advocate says:

    At the outset, as a professional, I appreciate the direction of the Hon’ble ITAT, which is well timed in the present changing environment.

    However, the period of 3 weeks in advance for seeking of adjournment, in my opinion, is little too long a period, which could lead to practical difficulties.

    I would suggest that, the period of one week could be considered to be sufficient, within which an adjournment petition could be filed, apart from exceptional circumstances, which has duly been considered by the Hon’ble President in his order.

    It is suggested that, the requirement of filing of an affidavit should be dispensed with, more for the reason that, the institutions should place its trust on the representatives of the professionals, and also the senior officials of the Department.

    In the order, it has been mentioned that, the application will be filed in duplicate and served in advance to the opposite party. It further states that, in case the opposite party writes, “Not opposed”, on the application, it will be taken up by the Hon’ble Members at the Chamber, otherwise, all the applications will be considered by the Hon’ble Bench on the date of hearing.

    It is also not clear whether the copy for adjournment, which is to be served on the opposite party, would also be required to be served at least 3 weeks in advance.

    Now, considering that if the CIT-DR office does serve upon the appellant/ respondent, as the case may be, then the subsequent communication by the assessee, of whether to oppose or not, would also be required to be communicated to the Register, and within what time it would be required to be communicated by the assessee, is not clear.

    All these modalities would take time, and could lead to some confusion.

    The situation would be different where the assessee is filing for adjournment, because the office of the Hon’ble Register of the ITAT and the office of the CIT-DR are situated in the same place, but in the other way around, where the Department is required to make this communication of whether the petition will be opposed or not, it will create practical difficulty.

    It is the practical experience that the CIT-DR/DR’s are given the file folders only one or two days before the date of hearing. It is also seen that, many a times, Senior DR/DR’s are appointed as visiting DR’s, and they too get these file folders just a day or two before the date of hearing. If the time frame as per the order is to be followed, it would create a lot of practical difficulties, which would lead to confusion.

    It is suggested that, to overcome this practical difficulty all adjournments should be posted before the Hon’ble Bench for their final decision.

  9. K. H. Kaji, Advocate. says:

    I am very much surprised if not shocked by the recent order passed by the President of ITAT dt. 20-5-2015. It creates very difficult and unnecessary complications in applying for adjournment of the appeals before the Tribunal.

    In the first place it is difficult if not impossible to file application for adjournment 3 weeks in advance. The circumstances for adjournment would normally arise 4/5 days before the appeal’s date of the hearing and it would be difficult if not impossible to file such application 3 weeks in advance. Further, virtually an impossible condition is further imposed by stating that application should be supported by an affidavit. It is known that the clients are not in the same town where the bench is sitting and they are spread all over the range of the Tribunal, may be in different States. This pre-condition would be very difficult to comply with. I do not know whether the same conditions are imposed on the revenue to apply 3 weeks in advance and supported by an affidavit of the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner!!.

    I wonder what made the Learned President to issue such an order when the matter regarding adjournments were very smoothly and informally dealt with by the present members of the ITAT. Necessity of affidavit of the party even in a case where practitioner is likely to be away or paper book etc. may not be ready at the office of the practitioner and affidavit of the party would be not proper. Nor should the ITAT require affidavit from the practitioner. The moto of the Tribunal has been SULABH NYAYA- SATWAR NYAYA which is made difficult by these empty formalities. The Tribunal is supposed to be working in a informal manner compared to the High Court where all these formalities have been imposed by rules/traditions.

    I would therefore appeal strongly to the President of the Tribunal to reconsider the said order and to withdraw the same as there were no complaints of inconvenience either from members of the ITAT or the practitioners under the present system.

    I would submit that less procedure and more informality will make more successful working of the Tribunal.

    (K.H Kaji)

    President Emeritus Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad

    President Emeritus All Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants.

  10. CA MANOJ SHAH says:

    I think this rule of adjournment is practically not acceptable.



  12. ganesh purohit says:

    Dear Sir

    I agree with the observations Anllji, In respect of paper book there is already rule 18 of the ITAT rules, It appears that President does not propose to disturb rule 18. as far as the procedure for adjournment is concerned it is not practicable for various reasons, in small places where touring benches are camping like Nagpur, Raipur and Jabalpur even hearing notices are not received three weeks before the hearing the how one can file an adjournment application so much advance in time that too supported by affidavit?

    Ganesh Purohit
    87, Narmada road
    Ratan colony
    JABALPUR 482001

  13. CA A K SRIVASTAVA says:

    The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, had been without a regular President for sometime in the recent past. In the mean time the pendency has increased. Small matters as well as appeals involving settled issues take substantial time for being heard and disposed off.

    Consequent upon appointment of Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) Dev Darshan Sud as the regular President, the tax payer, the Department and the Counsels have high hope that there shall be marked improvement. The two orders issued by the Hon’ble President on 14.05.2015 and 20.05.2015 seem to be a step to set the things right.

    The ITAT being the highest fact finding body, it works in a somewhat different manner than the Courts and therefore its own procedures of functioning have been in vogue. Though the orders have to be with respect, certain difficulties anticipated to arise are listed below.
    Order relating to Filing of Appeals

    1. The direction to file an Index alongwith appeal is a welcome step.

    2. It is not clear whether Paper Book is also required to be filed alongwith the appeal itself or can be filed separately.

    3. It is a known fact that in a majority of cases, the Counsels engaged for representation before Hon’ble ITAT are different from the ones who appeared before the lower authorities and the paper book is filed after discussing the case with the representing counsel.

    4. In respect of appeals filed by the Department, the Officers may not have enough time to file the paper books alongwith the appeal.

    The paper book therefore should be allowed to be filed subsequently. There is no issue on Index and page numbering and it should be in continuation.

    Order relating to Adjournments

    Litigants have been asked to file adjournment letter three weeks in advance, in duplicate and a copy is to be served on the opposite party. The adjournment application is to be accompanied with an affidavit.

    At present, the constitution of benches is announced for a week only, unlike High Courts where the constitution is for around three months. It has been a demand from the counsels that the constitution for a month should be announced so that they could prepare the cases. It is also a practice before the benches that Chartered Accountants / Advocates only should appear before the bench and their staff members are not entertained.

    If the constitution is announced just a few days before the date of hearing, the counsel might have another assignment for that day and may not be available. There are many instances where the appeals are posted on a fresh date by the registry, when the bench does not function. The counsels may be busy that day and it is well known that Counsels are busy at the time of filing the returns, thus leading to seeking adjournment. Filing an affidavit may at times may not be practicable.

    In respect of Departmental appeals, the DR may not be aware of the assessees’ Representative and it would be difficult for them to serve copy on the opposite party.

    It may therefore be requested that adjournment applications may be allowed to be moved two days before the date of hearing and copy be served on the opposite party. The affidavits may not be insisted upon.

  14. CA. JP DAFRIA RATLAM says:

    Such Rules should be applied on trial basis, say, for 3 months or so. How for these are practicable and the result would come out, then only such rules, if found useful, should be made applicable.

  15. CA. K S KOHLI says:



  16. nilesh says:

    Regarding Affedevit.. which is under the process of withdrawal in Maharashtra and who will decide what is exceptional..

  17. ANURADHA says:

    it would be good to put a cap of maximum adjournments- say 3 or 4 could be granted for an appeal. secondly there should also be time limit for disposal of appeals, as it is observed that in certain cases within 4 months of filing of appeal orders passed where as certain appeals filed 4 years ago are seems still pending.

  18. Chandrahas K says:

    Indexing appeal papers is not necessary. HC practices are not necessarily good. One of them which ITAT does not have to emulate is this procedure business. In HC, affidavit is necessary for everything. Absolute wastage of time. ITAT can do without such procedures. Whoever can think of a reason for adjournment so early? I think the requirement of filing affidavit, advance notice for adjournment, etc. from the assessees has to be resisted.

  19. CA Sudeep Chhallani says:

    Some guidelines should be there for seeking adjournments but not what is stated above.
    It would hardly help rather would increase the compliances and documentation ! Affidavit adds topping to it !

  20. R. K. Godhwani says:

    please send

  21. CA Chandravijay Shah says:

    Is the Order directing the filing of Adjournment Application minimum 3 Weeks in advance supported by Affidavit in the direction of “Ease of doing business in India”? The requirement of filing Affidavit in case of Petition for Condonation of Delay in filing of Appeal before ITAT is unduly extended to not-so-important matter of Adjournment Application also.

    “All applications for adjournment shall be filed atleast three weeks in advance, except in exceptional cases for which reasons for filing them beyond that period shall be clearly stated in the application.”: The words “except in exceptional cases” in the said Order are so subjective which may end up in another batch of litigation.

  22. Pravin Rathi says:

    Bench should also follow discipline of taking up appeals on the day fixed for hearing. Many times if a big matter is posted on any day, other matters are adjourned. This causes lot of inconvenience and waste of time and money, particularly to those coming from far off places. Rather, it discourages practitioners from mofusil area to represent in ITAT.

  23. Sanjeev Kumar Bindal says:

    Can we also expect that the Bench Constitution and their crashing shall also be issued 3 weeks in advance?

  24. CA Anant Pai says:

    The order of the Hon’ble President regarding indexing of appeal papers does not specify the sequence in which documents must be serialized. Registry has age old tradition of keeping the appeal papers in Memeber’s file in a particular sequence say with with Form 36 in top followed by CIT (A) etc and so on. Unless the sequence in which documents have to be filed is not prescribed , each appeallant may file the paper indexed in his own order . This will create confusion to the Registry and the Members at the time of hearing.

    Why affidavits to support adjournment applications ? Adjournments are often for reasons that previous related appeals are pending etc ? Affidavits for these also ?
    Why so much disbelief ?

    ITAT Bar Associations must oppose these developments

  25. A.Sekar Charterted Accountant says:

    Respected President

    As Mr.Devanathan has rightly pointed out, adjournments are not sought for unless it has become necessary. Prescribing a time limit of three weeks appears to be harsh as emergencies cannot be predicted before three weeks.Reasons such as medical grounds, sudden outstation engagements should be taken out of the three weeks condition. A certain amount of relaxation should be permitted even in other cases. Time bound work such as timebarring assessments, the last fortnight beore the due date for filing returns, tax audits should get excuses from this three week period.

    Fixing the maximum number of adjournments also would be impractical without providing for exceptions for valid and genuine causes.

  26. N. Devanathan , Advocate says:

    Respected President,

    Nobody cherish adjournment. It is used as an unavoidable measure. Even the department do not have papers and had to get from the Registry. Particularly the High Court cause list is published only previous night/or the date of hearing and hence much hardship would result to the Petitioner. The practical difficulties faced by the auditors during time barring and in the last month of filing return, tax audit and other good causes
    deserves adjournment. Instead adjournment not more than three time may not be permitted. The present measure is also against Article 39A which states that justice cannot be denied on account of disability. In nutshell justice would suffer.

  27. G. P. SHUKLA, ADVOCATE says:

    not practical will increase cost and harassment both. all procedures must be simple and easy. approaching DR for no objection is rather easy, how department will obtain such NO OBJECTION, most of time it is income tax department who seeks adjournment.

  28. CA Suniiel R Karbhari says:

    Changed Rules regarding the filing of the appeal with Indexed is welcome.
    Adjournments are one missed perversion invariably delaying any issue, played about.. that need to be curbed if there is no sufficient cause.
    But that can be without an affidavit and in line with when the Govt. tries to encourage self certification then why not trust litigants and counsels when they put up adj, applications.
    What is rightly observed , In the days,when our Hob’ble Prime Minister is harping on simplifying the procedures and doing away with notorisation of papers etc.,in the era of e stamping etc, asking for notorised affidavit will be against the prevailing wind of ease of Judicial administrative machinery . Such affidavit should be dispensed with and there should be provision for e-filing of adjournment letters, in the era of Information Technology Act and IT based assessee friendly tax administration.

  29. NAVEEN KUMAR says:

    Respected Sir, what is for adjournment by the department and providing information to the appellant and what is when case is listed for hearing but file of the case missing and necessary waste of time and money of the appellant.

  30. CA Kamalesh says:

    I suggest that there should be provision for e-filing of adjournment letters, other submissions as well and intimations of hearings.

    Till such time, the forms are amended for providing e-mail details, such details can be obtained at the time of filing of appeal.


    Respected President,

    I don’t think that assesses seek adournment for just delay the finality of the appeal which he himself has filed. Every appellant wants quick disposal and not waste of time by seeking adjurnments. No one goes to tribunal to gain undue advantage. On the contrary every assessee is is interested in quick results and disposal for the reason of pending demands and future assessments, where similar points by involved and the assessing officer merely follows his old assessment, right or wrong.
    It is only in emergencies that an adjournment is sought and for that too, someone has to be present on the date of hearing to justify and know the fate of the adjournment application.

    1. Adjournment should ordinarily be filed a week in advance, listing the justification and valid reasons.

    2. Such application should be in duplcate and a copy should be served on the Respondent.

    3.There should be a separate designated time every day [ preferably in after noon, which is ordinarily after most of the bench hearings are over] for disposal of such applications and grant of future date of hearing, whcih should be done in chamber of respective Bench member. This will spare time on the day of hearing when all adjournment applications are disposed of first.
    4. In the days,when our Hob’ble Prime Minister is harping on simplifying the procedures and doing away with notorisation of papers etc., asking for notorised affidavit will be against the prevailing wind of ease of doing business. Such affidavit should be dispensed with and a mere self declaration should be enough.

    Hope, above humble suggestions will be accepted in the interest of justice and fair play.

    Cell: 9324110666

  32. Bhupendra Shah says:

    1] Requirement of filing affidavit is not workable!
    2] Will Department be able to comply with the same ?
    3] Advance Intimation of 3 weeks is impractical !

  33. PCYADAV says:

    Respected Hon’ble Justice DD SUD ji it is not humanly possible to file an application before three weeks. Even in High Courts the practice is of one day before and to intimate the other side one day before. So please rethink over it and reduced the time to one day or two days. I am aware that Tribunal has power of civil courts and can regulate its own procedures. However that procedure should be just and in consonance with other courts. Thanks

    • Vijay Gupta says:

      I would tend to agree with other netizens that the proposed set of rules, howsoever genuine in its concept, is not to result in any justice & practical facilitation towards end of justice and speeding up the settlement of litigation but would more frustrate the genuine cases of adjournment caused by sudden ailments/ urgent work at the end of counsel or litigants OR clash of two important dates / events for the counsel. Many a times than not, such events would be in the vicinity of a week before the date of hearing. Would urge the ITAT body to re consider it. The menace of arbitrary adjournment can be curbed by putting high cost and/or refusing to grant adjournment in deserving cases as has been done last year by Hon’ble HC at Bombay. The basic principles of law should remain intact that while it may be difficult to punish the culprit, but in any case the innocence must not be punished.

  34. Sanjay Shah says:

    Though the intention to curb the practice of seeking adjournment and to get more disposal of appeals seem to be the prime considerations the remedy is likely to be worse than the disease.The registry would be required to inform the litigants atleast before a month as to whether all benches are functioning particularly at the locations where more than one benches are functioning otherwise litigants would be filing adj. petitions even for Benches which are not functioning on that day thus resulting in avoidable wastage of time and money.About affidavits, on one hand the Govt. tries to encourage self certification then why not trust litigants and counsels when they put up adj, applications.

  35. Senguttuvan says:

    All these rules are not to uphold the justice.

    Will only help boosting corruption

    I request Hon’ble President to fix time period for finalising appeals.

    Also find a solution for cases with small demands

    Also question why officers don’t follow precedents nor reason out in the order for not following

  36. Ashok Seth says:

    The rules framed for seeking adjournment ARE toooo impractical. Should be protested.

    When there is no bench why the appellant and respondents not informed in advance by e-mail/SMS ?

  37. i agree with the view of justice.

    adjournments are one missed perversion invariably delaying any issue, played about.. that need to be curbed if there is no sufficient cause.

  38. Surinder Babbar says:

    As regard adjournment. My observation on the issue is that many times adjournment is sought out of emergency. Hence, it is not possible to visualize such a situation in three weeks advance. Then filing of affidavit is not at all desirable as it shall involve much of time, increase the paper work and cost as well. It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble President ITAT should reconsider the issue and leave the subject upon the Hon’ble members of the bench.

  39. CA. P Jitendra kumar says:

    Respected sir
    Adjournment petition 3 weeks, may perhaps causes serious hardship. Notice for hearing, normally comes with a months notice.therefore, 3 weeks advance for adjournment may be a tad ambitious. First adjournment normally granted to post after two months. The procedure proposed appears to be missing core objective, expeditious disposal. The 3 week advance petition may delay the disposal. The present harmonious cart of administration , acting smoothly, may not deserve a disturbance. Kindly revisit, on the new direction

  40. CA Shailesh Doshi says:

    This system of seeking adjournment three weeks in advance is very harsh and not practical at all. Furthermore, asking the person seeking adjournment to file an affidavit for the same would lead to unnecessary waste of time and would cause hardship to the assessees concerned. As the past experience suggests, department has nothing to loose and is not at all affected by this order. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association must take up this issue and convey in clear terms that this system is not workable. Needless to say, the members of the ITAT have the discretion to grant adjournment looking at the approach of the Appellant which is easily discernible from the records.

  41. CA S N AGRAWAL says:

    Hon’ble President

    1] Suggestion regarding the filing of the appeal with Indexed is welcome.

    2] That as regard seeking adjournment. How, one can visualize before three week. Most of the time two or three days before the date of hearing we came to know about non- preparation of synopsis. In most of the time no adjounment was generally taken by the counsel but every counsel want disposal. Submitting affidavit also cause wastage of money of the client more so when government are try to reduce the paper work it cause adverse effect of the same. Pl re-look your instruction and leave the same on the discretionary of the members.

  42. Deepak Jain says:

    I have seen the comments of other learned friends, which I find worth considering. The issue of filing of appeals, cross-objections, process of hearing, adducing fresh evidence; raising new grounds, prayer for adjournments by either of the parties, or non-functioning of Bench and proper information to parties, filing of paper books by either side, conduct of Benches, disposal of Appeals/ cross-objections – all need to be revisited for proper administration of justice. So it is suggested to form a Committee which should also comprise the representtative of CBDT, ITAT Bar Associaiton, AIFTP and Apex Chambers of Commerce. Based on recommendation of such committee, the Tribunal Rules and Forms should be modified. Narayan Jain E mail; mobile 09830951252

  43. NP Jain says:

    I have seen the comments of other learned friends, which I find worth considering. The issue of filing of appeals, cross-objections, process of hearing, adducing fresh evidence; raising new grounds, prayer for adjournments by either of the parties, or non-functioning of Bench and proper information to parties, filing of paper books by either side, conduct of Benches, disposal of Appeals/ cross-objections – all need to be revisited for proper administration of justice. So it is suggested to form a Committee which should also comprise the representtative of CBDT, ITAT Bar Associaiton, AIFTP and Apex Chambers of Commerce. Based on recommendation of such committee, the Tribunal Rules and Forms should be modified. Narayan Jain E mail ; mobile 09830951252

  44. Narayan Jain says:

    I have seen the comments of other learned friends, which I find worth considering. The issue of filing of appeals, cross-objections, process of hearing, adducing fresh evidence; raising new grounds, prayer for adjournments by either of the parties, or non-functioning of Bench and proper information to parties, filing of paper books by either side, conduct of Benches, disposal of Appeals/ cross-objections – all need to be revisited for proper administration of justice. So it is suggested to form a Committee which should also comprise the representtative of CBDT, ITAT Bar Associaiton, AIFTP and Apex Chambers of Commerce. Based on recommendation of such committee, the Tribunal Rules and Forms should be modified. Narayan Jain E mail ; mobile 09830951252

  45. M.Ganesan says:

    Three weeks is not workable. No counsel work for adjournment. Emergency arises without information like ill health etc of counsel, assessee accountant etc. Enforcing affidavit is harsh

  46. Sher Singh says:

    Enforcing affidavit of the party is stupidity. Lets see how many departmental adjournments will get rejected for the want of affidavit of Assessing Officer. Only assessees’ adjournments will get affected. Finally government seems to have committed judiciary.


      Not practicable in 90% cases,particularly due to necessity of Affidavit & three weeks advance application

  47. Narayan Jain says:

    Comment of Narayan Jain:
    The Order of the ITAT is welcome. It will help in discouraging the trend of seeking ajournments. However the ITAT office should now issue Notice for hearing at least 2 months in advance so that wherever necessary adjournment application can be made 3 weeks in advance, It is also desirable that in case due to any reason ITAT Bench is not likely to function, information should be given to the appellant or his Advocate. A system should be developed so that in appeal form 36 itself the mobile no./ phone number as well as Email ID of Appellant as well as his Advocate/ CA should be properly mentioned. AIFTP may make a Representation for necessary amendment in the Form 36 for Appeal as well as Form 36A for Cross Objections in Appeals. Any positive step should be welcomed for carrying out justice.

    • CA U.S.Tanwar says:

      This is a right suggestion.Appellant/A.R.should be informed about bench not working and/or DR seeking adjournment by given Email or mobile no.Three weeks advance notice and affidavit for adjournment will cause hardship to litigants.It needs to be reconsidered.

  48. R. Ramamurthy says:

    For filing appeal/s modification of rule may not cause hardship. However, fixing three weeks period to seek adjournment and backed with affidavit will definitely cause hardship. I do agree that matters need not be adjourned for a long without a proper reason but at the same time burdening heavily on the representatives is not correct. Most of advocates/chartered Accountants time is eaten away by running from one place to another place for hearing. Those who are practicing in Courts and other forums (Sales Tax Tribunals) CESTAT etc., will not be able judge about reaching of their cases and under these circumstances, imposing three weeks advance application for adjournment and further affidavit (which will itself take time to prepare and get notarized) will all cause great hardship and dismissal of appeals on that ground will further increase litigation and hence requires reconsideration of this rule. In all department appeals, only form No.36 is served with grounds and no other annexure is served, if annexure is also, served it will help.

  49. AJOY GUPTA says:

    filing of adjournment 3 weeks in advance is not workable at all & 7 to 10 days should be provided.
    further filing of affidavit with the application is very harsh & will add unnecessary hassles & cost. if this rule is strictly followed there will be no application from the side of department.
    requires urgent modification


    Hon’ble President

    It is not practical to file an adjournment petition 3 weeks in advance as we can take a call on it at the most couple of days in advance. This can be restricted to only batch cases where there is likely hood of bench collapsing on account of adjournment. Otherwise couple of days advance notice, say 3 days, is the practical way out.

    Department has any way no practice of informing Counsel for Assessees’ as they enjoy that special deemed privilege before Tribunal.

  51. B.S.Purshotham says:

    Its very difficult to seek adjournment 3 weeks in advance. It will cause lot of inconvenience to all concerned. Many times pressing engagements arise in the last minute only.


    all changes are welcome but the change should be to remove the hurdles not one which create more hurdles. so be practical

  53. Arun Vachharajani says:

    Respected President ITAT,

    Your action is appreciated. However, there must be some rule for time bound disposal of appeal filed by the assessee.

    • Raj Kumar Mangla says:

      On subsequent dates the appeals are listed before different members who are not conversant with the facts and lot of appellant time is wasted to explain the earlier proceedings. Even in High Court appeals are listed and heard by same bench except change of roster after summer/winter breaks.

      Why Tribunal do not assign the appeal to a particular members till disposal or change of roster as followed by High Courts. This will not only expedite disposal of appeals but also save harassment to litigants.

      Please consider the above suggestion.s


    No useful purpose shall be achieved by either of the two orders. The adjournment is discretion of Court and whether affidavit is there or not, it makes no dent of the decision of members. The advance period for adjournment application is long as the eventuality may arise at short notice. Even illness, compulsory appearance before other Court and non-receipt of due information vital for arguements can be few reasons where 3 weeks advance letter will not be possible. As my other friend has cited an event where in case of department appeal, form 36 copy is received just 7 days before hearing or even the notice of hearing received few days before the date fixed therein. The present practice was working well and needed no modification. The procedure for filing of appeal has added things which have insignificant value.


    respected in practice it has been observed even the notice of hearing received /served within 7/10 from the date on which hearing fix in case revenue form 35 not served to file cross objection &to know grounds in nos of cases 254 application is pending over a long period please make necessary direction

  56. Adv. I.S.Verma says:

    Hon’ble President, ITAT,

    This will result in sheer wastage of valuable time of the Bench and will cause hardship to the innocent tax payers.

2 Pings/Trackbacks for "New ITAT Rules For Filing Appeals And Seeking Adjournment"
  1. […] worth noting that even in the Tribunal, Justice (Retd.) Dev Darshan Sud, President, had passed an order stating that adjournment applications should be filed at least three weeks in advance and be […]

  2. […] may be recalled that the Hon’ble President of the ITAT had passed orders dated 14th May 2015 and 20th May 2015 with regard to the filing of appeals and the seeking of adjournments. The Order with regard to the […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *