BREAKING: Gujarat HC Orders CBDT to Ensure 1-Month Gap Between ITR & Tax Audit Dates

BREAKING: Gujarat High Court Orders CBDT to Ensure 1-Month Gap Between ITR & Tax Audit Dates

Ahmedabad, 13 October 2025 — In a dramatic turn of events, the Gujarat High Court has directed the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to ensure that there is a mandatory one-month gap between the date for furnishing tax audit reports (under Section 44AB) and the due date for filing the corresponding Income Tax Return (ITR). The court has asked CBDT to issue the necessary extension and clarificatory instructions, and warned against piecemeal extensions without synchronisation.

The Presiding Judge reportedly expressed impatience with delays and emphasised that “the law is very clear.” The court has asked parties whether they intend to approach the Supreme Court and floated firm deadlines for a speaking order.

Below is a fuller account of what is known so far, what is being argued, and what to watch out for in the coming days.

What triggered the case

• Earlier, the CBDT had, under pressure, extended the due date for furnishing tax audit reports (audit “specified date”) from 30 September to 31 October 2025.
• However, the corresponding ITR filing due date for those under audit remained 31 October 2025 (i.e. no extension).
• Tax practitioners and associations filed writ petitions contending that under Explanation (ii) to Section 44AB, the audit “specified date” must always be one month before the ITR due date. Extending the audit deadline without making a corresponding ITR extension, they argued, undermines the statutory scheme.
• In earlier rulings, Gujarat High Court had held that the CBDT cannot extend the audit “specified date” without expanding the ITR filing date, as that would contravene the statute.

What the Gujarat High Court has done thus far

• A bench of Justice Bhargav Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi has asked the CBDT to explain why the ITR filing due date was not extended when the audit date was.
• The court proposed that unless a matching ITR extension is issued, the statutory one-month buffer is being violated.
• In court, the Judge reportedly asked Mr. Patel (representing the respondents/CBDT side) by 2:30 pm to clarify whether they intend to move the Supreme Court.
• The court also expressed concern that litigants nationally should not remain in limbo until 29 October to know whether extension would be granted, and that a speaking order should issue by 15 October.
• As per some reports, the court has ordered CBDT to come up with the extension proposal by 16 October.
• The court allowed the respondent the option to approach the Supreme Court, indicating a willingness to test the matter at higher level.

Status (as of this writing): The order is interim; the final speaking order is expected shortly. The extension of ITR for audit cases has been directed by the Gujarat HC.

Why this is a bold and (potentially) landmark step

• The principal legal contention is not merely about deadlines or convenience, but statutory harmony: Section 44AB’s Explanation (ii) ties the audit “specified date” to being one month prior to the ITR due date. The High Court’s directive insists that one cannot be extended without the other.
• By pressing CBDT to issue simultaneous instructions, the court is asserting that the administration cannot cherry-pick deadlines.
• The presence of a judge with CA background reportedly lent added urgency and technical understanding to the proceedings, prompting sharp interventions and deadlines.
• It sets a precedent that courts may demand statutory consistency even in the face of executive extensions, especially when the statutory scheme is clear.
• If upheld or adopted, this will relieve many auditors, taxpayers, and professionals from the crunch of having to finalize audit reports just before ITR filing deadlines, giving breathing space and reducing errors.

What to watch closely in the coming days

1. The speaking order by 15 October
   Whether the court issues a reasoned judgment (rather than just interim directions) will signal how strongly the court is committed to this interpretation.
2. CBDT’s extension notification
   The form, scope, and retroactive effect (if any) of the extension will matter a lot. It must explicitly extend ITR dates for audit cases, not merely audit report dates.
3. Whether the respondent moves to Supreme Court
   If challenged in SC, this issue could ascend into a landmark appellate ruling clarifying the boundaries of CBDT’s power vs. statutory prescription.
4. Impact on taxpayers & professionals
   If the extension is honored, it will reduce last-minute stress, reduce errors, and ease compliance. If not, litigation risk remains across multiple jurisdictions.
5. How other High Courts and CBDT respond in similar cases
   Already Rajasthan and Karnataka High Courts have extended audit dates in their jurisdictions. It will be telling whether they also demand ITR extension or follow Gujarat’s logic.

Conclusion

This is a high-stakes moment for tax litigation and administration in India. The Gujarat High Court has taken a forceful stand to insist on statutory coherence and prevent administrative overreach in extending deadlines unilaterally. For taxpayers, accountants, and legal practitioners alike, the coming few days may determine whether the law’s built-in safeguards will hold firm, or be subject to arbitrary waiver in the name of convenience.

A note of caution and disclaimer

• Some of your details (e.g. deadlines for orders, Judge’s personal references to CA qualification) appear to be from live court reports or insider notes and are not yet confirmed in publicly available judgments.
• The final outcomes may differ once all parties file responses or appeals.
• The extension decision, and any appellate review, will shape whether this becomes binding precedent or limited to the Gujarat context.