'Undue haste, recklessness': Delhi HC junks 7 Income Tax tribunal orders in Patanjali case

The court said the tribunal failed to address key contentions and disposed of seven appeals through a common order of fewer than seven paragraphs.

The Delhi high court has set aside seven orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in cross-appeals involving Patanjali Ayurved Limited, criticising the manner in which the matters were disposed of and describing the proceedings as a “shocking picture” of procedural lapses and a lack of transparency.

The judgment noted discrepancies in the hearing and pronouncement dates recorded for the appeals before the tax tribunal. (Hemant Rawat)

HC questions common order in seven separate appeals

A bench comprising justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, in its September 10 judgment uploaded on September 15, took serious exception to the ITAT passing a common order in all seven matters, which comprised separate appeals filed by Patanjali Ayurved Limited and the Revenue Department, despite different dates having been fixed for pronouncement of orders in the two sets of appeals.

The ITAT, the court said, neither addressed the contentions raised by the assessee nor examined the issues involved in the appeals, and proceeded to dispose of all seven matters through an order comprising fewer than seven paragraphs.

Judges flag haste and recklessness in passing order

The court further observed that the Members had displayed “undue haste, rather recklessness” in passing and signing the order, while the tribunal staff also failed to bring the errors to their attention at the time of signing. It held that such negligence could not be countenanced, particularly from appellate authorities occupying the highest rung of the fact-finding appellate hierarchy.

“These appeals portray a rather shocking picture of the procedural lapses and opaqueness in which the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), the highest fact-finding body, has been passing the orders in a zeal rather over-anxiety of disposing the cases. We are not much concerned with the size of the order but what shocks us is, the non-application of mind and undue haste which learned Members of the Tribunal have exhibited,” the court said.

It added, “On perusal of the impugned order, we are unable to comprehend anything out of it, as it is bereft of any logic, reasoning or rationale behind it. It is therefore clear that the learned Members have shown undue haste rather recklessness while passing and signing the order, and even their staff failed to bring it to notice of the learned Members while getting the order signed.”

HC points to discrepancy in hearing, pronouncement dates

It also took note of a discrepancy in the hearing and pronouncement dates. Four appeals were recorded as having been heard and pronounced on August 6, 2025, while the common order also dealt with three revenue appeals shown as heard and pronounced on August 13, 2025.

The court passed the orders while dealing with appeals filed by the Income Tax commissioner against the ITAT’s August 6 and 13 orders quashing the assessment proceedings against Patanjali and allowing its appeals.