Maintaining the Statutory One‑Month Gap Between Tax Audit Reports and Income‑Tax Returns: Commentary on Ashwini Kumar v. Central Board of Direct Taxes (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 29 October 2025)

1. Introduction

The judgment in Ashwini Kumar v. Central Board of Direct Taxes and another, decided by the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 29 October 2025, addresses a recurring and practically significant issue in Indian tax administration: the synchronisation of statutory due dates for:

furnishing tax audit reports under Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and
filing income-tax returns under Section 139(1).

The case gains particular importance because it builds on, and explicitly follows, a contemporaneous decision of the Gujarat High Court (in Income Tax Bar Association & Anr v. Union of India & Ors, decided on 13 October 2025) which held that, after the Finance Act, 2020, the statutory scheme mandates a one-month gap between the date of uploading of the tax audit report and the due date for filing the income-tax return in audit cases. Once the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) extends the “specified date” for tax audit, it must correspondingly extend the return filing due date, failing which it would defeat the statutory structure.

In addition, one of the petitions raised a connected concern regarding the deadline for renewal of registration under Section 12A (for charitable and non-profit entities). The Court examined a detailed clarification issued by CBDT and, in substance, accepted that no extension of the Section 12A renewal deadline was legally necessary, because the statute and rules already permit reliance on provisional financial statements.

This commentary analyses the judgment’s background, its engagement with prior precedents, the statutory provisions involved, and the broader implications for tax administration and taxpayer rights.

2. Overview of the Case

2.1 Parties and Petitions

The Court disposed of four connected writ petitions together:

CWP-28440-2025: Ashwini Kumar v. CBDT and another
CWP-29804-2025: Jalandhar INCOME TAX BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA and others
CWP-28685-2025: Taxation Bar Association, Pathankot v. Union of India and others
CWP-29131-2025: Income Tax Practitioners v. Union of India and others

The petitioners were individual practitioners and professional associations representing tax professionals. Respondents included:

the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), and
the Union of India.

The Bench comprised Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Lisa Gill and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta.

2.2 Reliefs Sought

The primary reliefs sought were:

Extension of the due date for filing tax audit reports beyond 30 September 2025, and, as a corollary, extension of the due date for filing income-tax returns for assessees whose accounts are required to be audited under Section 44AB.
In CWP No. 29131 of 2025, an additional prayer: extension of the deadline for renewal of registration under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

2.3 Immediate Factual Trigger

The petitioners emphasised that:

Tax audit reports and returns are mandatorily e‑filed.
Although changes to tax audit forms were notified on 28 March 2025, the e‑filing utility for filing the tax audit report was made available only on 14 August 2025.
The Department itself recognised the impact of delayed system readiness by extending the due date for non‑audit cases (certain non‑company assessees whose accounts are not required to be audited) from 31 July 2025 to 15 September 2025 via press release dated 27 May 2025.

Given this background, the petitioners argued that assessees requiring tax audit under Section 44AB had suffered “genuine hardship”, and that the CBDT was obliged to extend corresponding deadlines for tax audit reports and returns, as had been done in earlier years (e.g. pursuant to an order dated 29 September 2015 in CWP‑19770‑2015 by the same High Court).

3. Summary of the Judgment

3.1 Core Holding

The Punjab & Haryana High Court directed the CBDT to:

Issue a circular under Section 119 of the Income-tax Act extending the due date for filing returns of income to 30 November 2025 for:

assessees required to file a tax audit report as per clause (a) of Explanation 2 to Section 139(1), and

assessees otherwise required to get their accounts audited under the Act for the Financial Year 2024‑25 (Assessment Year 2025‑26).

The direction aligns with, and virtually mirrors, the Gujarat High Court’s order dated 13 October 2025 in Income Tax Bar Association & Anr v. Union of India & Ors, which required the CBDT to extend the “due date” for filing returns to 30 November 2025 for audit cases after having extended the “specified date” for tax audit reports to 31 October 2025.

3.2 Treatment of Section 12A Renewal Issue

With respect to the renewal of registration under Section 12A (for charitable and non-profit entities), the Court:

Recorded a detailed CBDT clarification email dated 29 September 2025, explaining that:
- Applications for renewal in Form 10AB need not be accompanied by audited financial statements for the latest year if audit is not yet completed.
- For the immediately preceding year (e.g. FY 2024‑25 if the application is filed on 30 September 2025), it is sufficient to file provisional financial statements.
Accepted that there is no direct statutory link between:
- the deadline for filing Form 10AB for renewal under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii), and
- the due dates for tax audit reports or income‑tax returns.

Consequently, while the Court granted relief regarding the extension of return filing due dates for audit cases, it did not direct extension of the Section 12A renewal deadline, implicitly accepting CBDT’s position that the existing legal framework already mitigated the concerns raised by the petitioners on this aspect.

3.3 Procedural Posture

The Court noted that:

CBDT had already extended the “specified date” for filing tax audit reports for AY 2025‑26 from 30 September 2025 to 31 October 2025 via Circular No. 14/2025.
Despite several adjournments on the representation that a proposal for extending the return filing due date was “under submission for early decision”, no circular had been issued even by 29 October 2025.
The Gujarat High Court’s order dated 13 October 2025 directing extension of the due date to 30 November 2025 had not been challenged by the Union of India or CBDT.

Against this backdrop, the Punjab & Haryana High Court declined further adjournments and proceeded to issue a positive mandamus requiring CBDT to exercise its powers under Section 119 to extend the due date in line with the Gujarat High Court’s view and the statutory scheme.

4. Detailed Analysis

4.1 Statutory Framework

4.1.1 Section 139(1) and Explanation 2 – “Due Date”

Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act requires various categories of assessees to file their return of income “on or before the due date”. Explanation 2 to Section 139(1) defines the “due date”. For present purposes, clause (a) of Explanation 2 is crucial. It provides that, where the assessee is:

a company, or
a person (other than a company) whose accounts are required to be audited under the Act or under any other law, or
a partner of such a firm (or spouse in certain cases),

the “due date” is the 31st day of October of the assessment year.

Thus, for Assessment Year 2025‑26, the statutory due date for audit cases under the unmodified statute would be 31 October 2025, subject to any relaxation/extension granted by CBDT under Section 119.

4.1.2 Section 44AB and Explanation (ii) – “Specified Date” for Tax Audit

Section 44AB mandates a tax audit in various cases (high-turnover businesses, specified professions, presumptive taxation cases with lower declared income, etc.). The section concludes with an Explanation, clause (ii) of which defines the “specified date” as:

“‘specified date’, in relation to the accounts of the assessee of the previous year relevant to an assessment year, means date one month prior to the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub‑section (1) of section 139.”

The significance is twofold:

The statute itself hard‑wires a one‑month gap between:
- the last date (specified date) for completing the audit and furnishing the tax audit report, and
- the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1)
for audit‑obliged assessees.
After the Finance Act, 2020, this one‑month gap has been expressly recognised as a statutory feature, replacing the earlier regime under which, practically, audit reports and returns often had the same deadline.

In a normal year (without extended deadlines), this framework implies that, if the due date for the return is 31 October, the specified date for the tax audit report is 30 September.

4.1.3 Section 119 – CBDT’s Power to Issue Relaxation Circulars

Section 119 empowers CBDT to issue orders, instructions and directions for:

the proper administration of the Act, and
in specified circumstances, to relax the application of certain provisions to mitigate hardship to assessees.

In practice, CBDT uses Section 119 to:

extend statutory due dates for filing returns, tax audit reports, TDS statements, etc.,
issue clarifications and procedural guidance, and
grant general or class-based reliefs in cases of hardship.

The High Courts, exercising writ jurisdiction, can judicially review the CBDT’s exercise (or non‑exercise) of these discretionary powers, particularly where inaction or delay undermines statutory rights or causes manifest hardship.

4.1.4 Section 12A, Section 12A(1)(ac), and Rule 17A – Renewal of Registration

For charitable trusts and non‑profit organisations, registration under Section 12A (or 12AB) is a pre‑condition for claiming exemption of income. The Finance Act, 2020 introduced a system of:

time‑bound registrations (typically five years), and
renewal through applications under Section 12A(1)(ac), to be made in prescribed forms (including Form 10AB) within specified timeframes.

Rule 17A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 sets out:

the forms to be used (e.g. Form 10AB), and
the documents required, including:
- self‑certified copies of prior years’ financial statements or tax audit reports (if applicable),
- limited to up to three years for which accounts are made up.

Crucially, as CBDT’s clarification emphasised and the Court accepted:

No mandatory requirement exists to file audited financials for the latest year if the accounts have not yet been audited; provisional statements suffice.
Rule 17A does not require copies of prior years’ ITRs to be filed along with the renewal application.

Therefore, the renewal deadline (e.g. 30 September 2025) is textually independent of the tax audit report date or the return filing due date.

4.2 The Precedents and Their Influence

4.2.1 All Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants v. CBDT (SCA No. 12656 of 2014, decision dated 22.09.2024)

The Punjab & Haryana High Court, quoting the Gujarat High Court, referred to an earlier decision in All Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants v. CBDT (Special Civil Application No. 12656 of 2014, decided on 22 September 2024). Though the full text is not reproduced in the present judgment, its significance is:

It laid the groundwork for judicial scrutiny of CBDT’s timing and approach in extending due dates.
It analysed how the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2020 (creating a statutory one‑month gap between tax audit and ITR filing) should influence CBDT’s conduct.

The Gujarat High Court in the 2025 case reiterates this earlier holding and uses it to criticise CBDT’s practice of waiting until the “verge of completion” of the due date period before issuing extensions, especially when the statute itself prescribes a lead‑time between audit and return filing.

4.2.2 Income Tax Bar Association & Anr v. Union of India & Ors (Gujarat High Court, 13.10.2025)

The Gujarat High Court’s decision in Income Tax Bar Association & Anr v. Union of India & Ors is central to the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s reasoning. Key elements from the extracts reproduced are:

Recognition of the statutory one‑month gap:
“... on analysis of the provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 providing period of one month between the date of uploading of the audit report and due date of filing of return as per Section 139(1) of the Act...”
The Court treats this one‑month period as an integral part of the statutory framework, not as a mere administrative preference.
Critique of CBDT’s ‘monitoring’ justification:
“... the concern shown by the respondent no.2 CBDT in the affidavit‑in‑reply for closely monitoring the functioning of E‑filing portal is without any basis as statutorily there has to be a prior period of one month between the date of uploading the audit report being the ‘specified date’ and ‘due date’ of filing of the return. Respondent no.2 CBDT therefore would not be justified to wait till end of OCTOBER, 2025 for issuing circular to extend the ‘due date’.”
Requirement of consequential extension of the ITR due date:
“... as the respondent no.2 CBDT has not issued any Circular while exercising its power under Section 119 of the Act to extend the ‘due date’ for filing the return of income ... to 30th November, 2025, when the ‘specified date’ is extended from 30.09.2025 to 31.10.2025, a consequential Circular to extend the ‘due date’ to 30.11.2025 ... is required to be issued.”
Protection of the integrity of Explanation (ii) to Section 44AB:
“If ‘due date’ for filing return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act is not extended by the respondent no.2 CBDT then the Explanation (ii) to Section 44AB of the Act shall be rendered negatory and the ‘specified date’ defined therein would [be] as per the extended date by the CBDT and not as per the statutory provision being one month to the due date of filing of the return. The present situation would restore the pre amended provision of filing audit report and return of income together contrary to existing provisions of the Act.”
This is a strong constitutional/statutory law argument: administrative action cannot re‑create a pre‑amendment regime that the legislature has consciously changed.
Final direction:
“... we direct the respondent no. 2 CBDT to issue Circular exercising power under sections 119 of the Act to extend the ‘due date’ of filing of return up to 30th 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 ...”

This Gujarat decision was explicitly not challenged by the Union of India or CBDT and thus stood final at the time of the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision.

4.2.3 Prior Punjab & Haryana High Court Order (CWP‑19770‑2015, dated 29.09.2015)

The petitioners also relied on a prior order of the same High Court (CWP‑19770‑2015, order dated 29 September 2015), where:

The Court had directed CBDT to extend the due date for e‑filing returns, and
CBDT had been asked to issue notification/instructions under Section 119 for that purpose.

While the present judgment does not reproduce that order in detail, its citation underscores a consistent judicial approach: where statutory timelines and CBDT’s administrative delays (particularly in making e‑filing utilities available) create hardship, Courts have not hesitated to nudge—or direct—CBDT to issue appropriate relaxation circulars.

4.3 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

4.3.1 Adoption of Gujarat High Court’s Reasoning

The Punjab & Haryana High Court essentially adopts and applies the Gujarat High Court’s reasoning. The crucial elements are:

Statutory one‑month gap is mandatory: By quoting the Gujarat decision, the Court endorses the view that, post‑Finance Act 2020, there must be a one‑month lead‑time between:
- the “specified date” for tax audit report under Explanation (ii) to Section 44AB, and
- the Section 139(1) due date for filing the return in audit cases.
Extension of the specified date necessitates extension of the due date:
Once CBDT uses its Section 119 power to extend the specified date from 30 September 2025 to 31 October 2025, maintaining the statutory structure implies that the due date automatically shifts to 30 November 2025. In practice, Courts cannot themselves rewrite the date but can direct CBDT to issue a circular doing so.
Avoiding negation of Explanation (ii) to Section 44AB:
If CBDT were allowed to extend the “specified date” to 31 October 2025 while keeping the return due date at 31 October 2025 (or any earlier date), the “specified date” would no longer be “one month prior” to the return due date, thereby contradicting the statutory definition. The Gujarat High Court had characterised this as rendering Explanation (ii) “negatory”, and the Punjab & Haryana High Court aligns with that interpretation.
Control over CBDT’s ‘last-minute’ tendency:
The Gujarat High Court’s criticism of CBDT’s practice of waiting until the end of October to decide on extension was quoted with approval. The Punjab & Haryana High Court notes that CBDT’s repeated stance—that a proposal was “under submission”—could not justify any further delay, especially after an unchallenged High Court order (from Gujarat) had already directed extension.

4.3.2 Judicial Review of CBDT’s Inaction

A subtle but important aspect is that the Court treats CBDT’s failure to timely extend the due date as a form of reviewable inaction, in the backdrop of:

a clear statutory structure (Section 44AB Explanation (ii) and Section 139(1) Explanation 2(a)),
CBDT’s own action already extending the specified date, and
another High Court’s final and unchallenged order directing extension for the same assessment year and same class of assessees.

Instead of merely suggesting that CBDT “consider” extension, the Punjab & Haryana High Court issues a mandatory direction:

“... directing respondent – CBDT to issue necessary circular in exercise of power under Section 119 of the Act to extend the due date for filing of returns ... to 30.11.2025.”

This indicates that where the legal position is sufficiently clear and CBDT’s inaction threatens to frustrate that position, the Court is willing to step in and require positive action.

4.3.3 Treatment of the Section 12A Renewal Issue

On the issue of extension of the deadline for renewal of registration under Section 12A, the Court takes a different route:

CBDT provided a detailed clarificatory email on 29 September 2025, explaining that:
- Renewal applications under Form 10AB need to be filed at least six months prior to expiry of the current registration.
- For entities whose existing five‑year registration (granted for AY 2022‑23 to 2026‑27) was due to expire by 31 March 2025, the last date for making an application for renewal fell on 30 September 2025.
- Under Rule 17A, the documents required include:
  - self‑certified copies of annual financial statements or tax audit reports for up to three years prior to the financial year in which the application is made, for which accounts are made up;
  - for the immediately preceding year (e.g. FY 2024‑25 if application filed on 30 September 2025), only provisional financial statements are required if the audit is not yet completed.
- There is no requirement to file copies of prior years’ income‑tax returns with Form 10AB.
CBDT concluded that:
“... there is no anomaly created by extending specified date for furnishing audit report for financial year 2024‑25 ... Therefore, the concern raised by the petitioner is based on an incorrect [assumption].”
The Court accepted this clarification and placed it on record, without issuing any direction to extend the Section 12A renewal deadline. By doing so, it effectively held that:
- The statutory scheme itself already accommodates the practical difficulty (by allowing provisional financials), and
- No additional judicial intervention is needed on this front.

This contrast—between the Court’s proactive stance on ITR due date extension and its deferential stance on Section 12A renewal—is doctrinally important. It shows that the Court steps in aggressively when statutory provisions are threatened with negation (as with Section 44AB Explanation (ii)), but is more restrained where the statute already provides flexibility.

4.4 Impact and Significance

4.4.1 Reinforcing the One‑Month Gap as a Substantive Right

By effectively reading the one‑month gap between tax audit and return filing as a mandatory statutory feature, the judgment contributes to a developing doctrine that:

The Finance Act 2020’s creation of a one‑month interval is not a mere administrative guideline; it is a legally enforceable structure.
Administrative actions (like CBDT’s extensions) must respect this structure; they cannot be used to compress or eliminate this gap.

In practical terms, this gives tax practitioners and assessees a strong basis to argue, in future years, that:

If CBDT extends the due date for tax audit reports, then, absent statutory amendment, a corresponding extension of the return filing due date should follow to preserve the one‑month structure.
Failure to do so may be challenged as ultra vires the scheme of Section 44AB read with Section 139(1).

4.4.2 Curtailing CBDT’s “Last-Minute” Extension Practice

Both the Gujarat and Punjab & Haryana High Courts criticised CBDT’s pattern of waiting until the very end of the month (or even after) to issue extension circulars, ostensibly to “monitor” the functioning of the e‑filing portal and filing statistics.

The combined impact of these decisions is to signal that:

Where the statutory framework itself dictates a staggered schedule (audit first, then return), CBDT cannot justify last‑minute decision‑making simply on the basis of portal monitoring.
If CBDT has already extended the audit deadline, it should proactively ensure that the return filing deadline is adjusted in advance, rather than leaving taxpayers in uncertainty.

4.4.3 Strengthening Inter‑High Court Persuasion and National Uniformity

The Punjab & Haryana High Court explicitly notes that the Gujarat High Court’s order had not been challenged and had attained finality. It then essentially replicates the Gujarat relief for taxpayers within its territorial jurisdiction and directs CBDT to issue a national circular.

Given that:

CBDT’s circulars under Section 119 are, by nature, pan‑India in operation, and
two High Courts have now adopted the same reasoning for the same assessment year,

the judgment significantly increases the pressure on CBDT to bring its administrative practice in line with this judicial interpretation, not just for AY 2025‑26, but in future years as well.

4.4.4 Clarifying Compliance for Charitable Entities (Section 12A/80G)

The judgment’s record of CBDT’s clarification regarding Section 12A renewal has independent importance for:

Charitable trusts and institutions registered under Section 12A/12AB, and
Entities seeking or renewing approval under Section 80G.

CBDT’s clarification (accepted by the Court) establishes that:

For renewal applications in Form 10AB:
- there is no obligation to attach audited financial statements for the immediately preceding year if audit is not complete;
- provisional financial statements are acceptable; and
- copies of prior years’ ITRs are not mandated.
Therefore, the Section 12A renewal timeline operates independently of the tax audit and ITR deadlines, reducing the perceived need for judicial or administrative extension.

This provides practical certainty to charitable entities and their advisors, and reduces the risk of unnecessary non‑compliance panic linked to the audit/ITR calendar.

5. Complex Concepts Simplified

5.1 What is a Tax Audit under Section 44AB?

A tax audit under Section 44AB is a special kind of audit of an assessee’s books of account, conducted by a Chartered Accountant, with the primary objective of:

ensuring that income is properly calculated and reported under the Income-tax Act, and
reporting specified details (like depreciation, disallowances, compliance with TDS/TCS provisions, etc.) in a prescribed format (Form 3CA/3CB with Form 3CD).

It typically applies where:

Business turnover exceeds a threshold (e.g. one crore or ten crores, subject to conditions), or
Professional receipts exceed a threshold (e.g. fifty lakh), or
Assessees under presumptive taxation schemes declare profit below the deemed percentage or cross particular thresholds.

Once an assessee is covered by Section 44AB, the audit report must be uploaded electronically on the income‑tax portal by the specified date, which, by statute, is one month before the due date for filing the return.

5.2 “Specified Date” vs “Due Date” – The One‑Month Gap

Two different deadlines are relevant in audit cases:

Specified date (Section 44AB Explanation (ii)):
- This is the last date for getting the accounts audited and uploading the tax audit report.
- It is defined as “one month prior to” the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1).
Due date (Section 139(1) read with Explanation 2(a)):
- This is the last date for filing the income‑tax return.
- For companies and audit‑obliged assessees, it is generally 31 October of the assessment year (subject to any extension by CBDT).

After the Finance Act, 2020, Parliament expressly ensured a one‑month buffer between these dates, so that:

first, the accounts are audited and the audit report is filed (by the specified date), and
then, within the following month, the return of income is finalised and filed.

The High Courts in these cases insist that CBDT’s extensions must preserve this buffer.

5.3 What is Section 12A (Registration of Charitable Trusts)?

Section 12A (read with Section 12AB and relevant rules) governs the registration of charitable and religious trusts and institutions. Registration is:

a precondition for claiming exemption on income applied to charitable purposes, and
time‑bound, typically for five years, after which renewal must be sought.

Key points simplified:

Fresh registration/Provisional registration: For newly created entities or those without prior registration.
Renewal of registration: Existing registered entities must apply for renewal in Form 10AB under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii), generally at least six months before expiry of the current registration.
Documents required (Rule 17A):
- Copies of trust deed, registration certificate, etc.
- Self‑certified copies of prior years’ financial statements/tax audit reports, for up to three years for which accounts have been made up.

The crucial clarification in this case is that the law:

does not require audited financial statements of the latest year if the audit is not yet completed; provisional financial statements are enough.
does not require prior years’ ITRs to be attached with Form 10AB.

Therefore, the Section 12A renewal process is structurally decoupled from the tax audit and ITR filing deadlines for the latest year.

6. Conclusion

The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision in Ashwini Kumar v. CBDT is a significant reaffirmation of the statutory design introduced by the Finance Act 2020 for audit cases:

It recognises that the law mandates a one‑month gap between:
- the “specified date” for tax audit reports under Section 44AB, and
- the “due date” for filing income‑tax returns under Section 139(1).
It holds that once CBDT extends the tax audit deadline to 31 October 2025, it must, in order to preserve that statutory structure, correspondingly extend the return filing due date to 30 November 2025.
It treats CBDT’s failure to act promptly, particularly in the face of an unchallenged Gujarat High Court order on the same issue, as unjustified inaction warranting a mandatory judicial direction.
At the same time, it shows on the Section 12A renewal issue, accepting CBDT’s clarification that the law already permits provisional financial statements and does not tie renewal deadlines to audit/ITR dates.

In the broader legal landscape, the judgment:

Strengthens taxpayers’ ability to insist on the statutory sequencing of audit and return filing in future years.
Sends a clear signal that CBDT’s administrative convenience or portal monitoring cannot override or dilute explicit legislative mandates.
Provides important interpretative clarity for charitable entities on how to approach renewal of registration under Section 12A/12AB.

Overall, Ashwini Kumar v. CBDT is a notable example of High Courts using writ jurisdiction not to rewrite tax policy, but to ensure that administrative practice remains faithful to the statutory architecture laid down by Parliament, particularly when that architecture is designed to protect taxpayers’ practical ability to comply with complex obligations like tax audits and return filing.

Maintaining the Statutory One‑Month Gap Between Tax Audit Reports and Income‑Tax Returns: Commentary on Ashwini Kumar v. CBDT (P&H High Court, 29 Oct 2025)