Gujarat High Court directs CBDT to extend the due date for filing ITR in audit cases to 30.11.2025 to maintain one months mandatory gap.
In a recent judgment, the Gujarat High Court has directed CBDT to extend the due date for filing ITR in audit cases to 30.11.2025 to maintain one months mandatory gap.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4782 (2025) (10) abcaus.in HC
The Hon’ble High Court asked counsel to show if from 01.04.2020 the time gap for filing return of income after the due date of audit for any year was less than one month.
An interesting situation as created when the counsel himself submitted that as per the amendment made by the Finance Act 2012, Explanation to section 44AB was amended to provide that the specified date (due date) for filing audit report in relation to an Assessment Year is one month prior to the due date for filing return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). It is notable that prior to the amendment for the words “one month prior” “30th day of September of the assessment year” was the language written in the said Explanation.
Their Lordship observed that the counsel was not denying but supporting the case of the Petitioner that date for filing ITR should be extended by on months i.e. to 30.11.2025The Hon’ble High Court asked the question that if a person obtains an audit report on 31st October how can he is expected to file the return on the same day?
The Hon’ble High Court opined that there must be a gap of one month between the due date of audit and filing of the return. The Court gave an example that if CBDT extends the due date for filing ITR to 7th November 2025, taxpayers can file audit report by 7th October only.
The Hon’ble High Court asked the counsel why the CBDT is not issuing the Notification for extention of due date for filing ITR inn audit cases. The Hon’ble High Court urged the counsel to tell the court the stand of CBDT on the question of automatic extension for one month for filing ITR or if whether CBDT can reduce the period of one month to zero.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that it is certain that CBDT don not want to extend the due date of filing ITR to 30th November 2025. If the gap between the due date for filing audit report and ITR is not one month the Explanation to section 44AB shall become redundant.
The High Court observed that CBDT has always shown a tendency to extend the “due date” for filing the return on the verge of completion of the period of due date after monitoring E-filing portal so that the last date rush of filing the return may be avoided.
The Hon’ble High Court decided not to go to the larger question as to whether CBDT has power under section 119 to extend the specified date as per section 44AB, but it held that in terms of the Explanation to section 44AB, on extension of the the due date for filing ITR automatically gets extended by one month i.e. 30th November 2025.
The Hon’ble High Court further clarified that the date shall stand extended to 30.11.2025 and not to 29.11.2025 as one month is one month and there are no days therefore it will get extended to 30.11.2025.
Accordingly, in terms of the Explanation (ii) of Section 44AB of the Act, the High Court directed the CBDT to issue Circular exercising power under sections 119 of the Act to extend the “due date” of filing of return up to 30 th November,2025 for the assessees who are required to file audit report as per clause (a) of Explanation 2 to sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act or requiring to file the report of audit under the provisions of the Act for the Financial Year 2024-25 (Assessment Year 2025-26)the Hon’ble High Court directed CBDT to extend the due date for filing ITR in audit cases to 30.11.2025.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
When AO invoked provisions of section 37(1) to disallow purchases, provisions of section 69C of the Act are not applicable…
ITAT refuses to accept opening cash as source of cash deposit as assessee was not subject to audit and cash…
Mere preparation of income tax notice and forwarding the same for dispatch is not effective issuance of notice until it…
Agreement validly terminated prior to initiation of CIRP did not constitute “assets” or “property” of the corporate debtor u/s 14…
Supreme Court explains jurisdiction of courts under NI Act for dishonour of account payee or bearer cheques In a recent…
Advances received in normal course of business and adjusted against sale bills cannot be added u/s 68 of the Income…