Judicial Rebuke of CBDT’s Delay Culture: A Multi-High Court Chronicle on ITR Extensions

Judicial Rebuke of CBDT’s Delay Culture: A Multi-High Court Chronicle on ITR Extensions

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has faced mounting judicial scrutiny for its habitual last-minute announcements of Income Tax Return (ITR) deadline extensions. In a rare convergence, five High Courts—Punjab & Haryana, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Karnataka, and Bombay—have issued stern directives and observations, exposing the administrative inertia and stakeholder distress caused by CBDT’s delay tactics. This article synthesizes the legal developments, case details, and broader implications for tax governance.

Punjab & Haryana High Court: Contempt Warning for Inaction

In Tax Bar Association v. Union of India & Ors. [CWP No. 21125 of 2025], the Punjab & Haryana High Court issued a sharp rebuke to the CBDT on October 29, 2025, for failing to act on the Gujarat High Court’s directive to extend the ITR deadline. The Court observed:

“The continued inaction of the CBDT, despite judicial directions and stakeholder appeals, may invite contempt proceedings. The Board cannot remain inert while taxpayers and professionals face chaos.”

The Court emphasized that last-minute extensions cause panic, disrupt compliance planning, and undermine the credibility of the tax administration. It recorded the Department’s assurance that necessary orders would be issued, but warned that failure to comply would be treated seriously.

Just when the author was about to close the article, an updated message is coming in the websites.

The Court noted that CBDT’s counsel failed to produce any instructions, despite prior judicial nudges and stakeholder appeals. The Bench emphasized that administrative silence in the face of mounting compliance hardship was unacceptable. While earlier hearings had warned of contempt proceedings, the Court ultimately exercised restraint and passed a direct order for extension.

This marks the second rebuke from the same High Court in recent weeks, reinforcing its stance that governance must be proactive, not reactive.

Gujarat High Court: Statutory Link Affirmed

In Income Tax Bar Association & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [WP No. not disclosed publicly], the Gujarat High Court, in its judgment dated October 13, 2025, directed the CBDT to extend the ITR filing deadline for audit cases under Section 139(1) to November 30, 2025, aligning it with the extended tax audit report deadline under Section 44AB.

The Court held that the “specified date” and “due date” are statutorily linked, and failure to extend the ITR deadline after extending the audit report deadline was arbitrary. The petitioners had highlighted technical glitches, delayed release of utilities, and compliance bottlenecks. The judgment reinforced that administrative convenience cannot override statutory logic and taxpayer rights.

Rajasthan High Court: Proactive Governance Urged

In Tax Bar Association, Jodhpur v. Union of India [CW No. 18593/2025], the Rajasthan High Court’s interim order dated September 24, 2025, directed the CBDT to extend the due date for filing Tax Audit Reports to October 31, 2025. The Court noted that persistent technical issues on the e-filing portal, delayed release of forms, and overlapping deadlines warranted judicial intervention.

The Bench observed that CBDT’s refusal to extend deadlines despite past precedents was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). It urged the Board to adopt a proactive stance, rather than waiting for judicial nudges or last-day panic. The order reflected a growing judicial impatience with bureaucratic rigidity.

Karnataka High Court: Mental Stress and Administrative Burden

In Karnataka State Chartered Accountants Association v. CBDT [WP No. 29434/2025], the Karnataka High Court, in its order dated September 25, 2025, extended the tax audit deadline to October 31, 2025, echoing the Rajasthan HC’s directive. The petitioners had argued that the compressed timelines and technical glitches imposed unreasonable stress on professionals.

The Court acknowledged the mental strain and administrative burden caused by uncertainty and last-minute decisions. It emphasized that predictable governance is essential for compliance, and that the CBDT must act with foresight, not compulsion. The judgment added to the chorus of judicial voices demanding timely relief.

Bombay High Court: Software Glitches and Section 87A Rebate

In The Chamber of Tax Consultants v. Union of India [PIL], the Bombay High Court, in its order dated December 24, 2024, directed the CBDT to extend the ITR filing deadline to January 15, 2025, for taxpayers affected by software glitches that prevented claiming the Section 87A rebate.

The Court noted that recent changes to the Income Tax Department’s utility software had denied eligible taxpayers their rightful rebate, despite their compliance. It held that technical lapses by the Department cannot penalize taxpayers, and ordered immediate notification under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act. This case underscored the need for robust digital infrastructure and responsive administration.

Bird’s eye view of Judicial Interventions: A Timeline of Criticism

Here’s a brief overview of key High Court cases that have called out the CBDT’s delay tactics:

 Stakeholder Fallout: Chaos, Cost, and Credibility Loss

The cumulative effect of CBDT’s delay culture has been disruptive for taxpayers, professionals, and institutions:

• Compliance Disruption: Chartered accountants and tax professionals plan their workflows around statutory calendars. Sudden extensions derail resource allocation and client coordination.
• Mental Strain: The ambiguity until the final day creates undue stress, especially during peak filing seasons.
• Loss of Credibility: The CBDT’s silence until the eleventh hour erodes trust in its administrative responsiveness and damages its institutional reputation.
• Judicial Overreach Risk: Repeated court interventions signal executive failure, risking erosion of separation of powers.

CBDT’s Last-Minute Extension Announcements 

This pattern shows that CBDT consistently waits until the last moment to announce extensions, often under pressure from courts, professional bodies, or technical failures. Such unpredictability undermines compliance planning and has led to judicial rebukes across multiple High Courts.

A Call for Reform: Institutionalizing Predictability

The judiciary’s repeated admonitions should compel the CBDT to:

• Announce extensions well in advance, ideally 2–3 weeks before the deadline.
• Consult professional bodies like ICAI, taxpayer forums, and software vendors to assess ground realities.
• Institutionalize a compliance calendar with built-in flexibility for exigencies.
• Ensure technical readiness of e-filing utilities before announcing deadlines.
• Publish impact assessments post-deadline to improve future planning.

Conclusion: Governance Must Be Predictable, Not Reactive

The convergence of five High Courts in criticizing the CBDT is not a coincidence—it’s a systemic indictment. When judicial benches across jurisdictions echo the same concerns, it signals a deep administrative malaise. Stakeholders deserve clarity, not chaos. Timely communication is not a luxury—it’s a statutory obligation and a governance imperative.

The CBDT must evolve from a reactive to a responsive institution. Judicial patience is not infinite, and stakeholder trust is not inexhaustible. The time for reform is now.