With September 30 closing in, I stared at a mountain of tax-audit files and a blinking e-filing portal. On September 25, 2025, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) finally moved the AY 2025-26 tax-audit deadline from September 30 to October 31, 2025.
This is not a story of “CAs asking for comfort.” It is a story of professional strain, public pressure, courtroom nudges-and a rare moment of responsiveness in the dialogue between the government and the governed.
The annual September pressure cooker!
● Late utilities: Key ITR/audit tools landed in July-August, compressing months of work into weeks.
● Heavier Form 3CD: New disclosures (including MSME 43B(h), settlements, buy-backs) meant fresh reconciliations and document hunts.
● Portal friction: Log-ins, OTPs and peak-hour slowdowns shaved hours off every file.
● Bunched timelines: Non-audit ITRs ran to September 15, leaving ~15 days for most audits.
● Real life: Flood-hit regions, Navratri week and thin staff availability collided with the calendar.
What moved the needle
Representations from ICAI and regional bodies set out ground realities. High Courts, notably Rajasthan and Karnataka, signalled/ordered relief. Professionals observed a pen-down day; clients and even MPs asked for parity.
CBDT’s announcement
What struck me was the somewhat defensive undertone in the CBDT’s announcement. The press release acknowledged the ground realities but not without first patting the department on the back. It noted that as of September 24, over 4.02 lakh Tax Audit Reports had already been filed and 7.57 crore income tax returns were submitted by September 23, 2025. In other words: “Look, the systems worked for millions, and many complied – but okay, we hear you.”
It specifically stated that “while the Income-tax e-filing portal has remained technically sound. CBDT acknowledged the real-world constraints faced by professionals.”
As a practitioner, I’ll take it – reason aside, the end result was what mattered for us and our clients. But the subtext was not lost: such extensions are hard-won, not easily given.
If the date hadn’t moved
● Mass default risk: Penalties at 0.5% of turnover (capped at ₹1.5 lakh) and loss of benefits for honest taxpayers.
● Quality risk: Rushed 3CDs → mismatches → future notices and litigation.
● Policy patchwork: State-wise HC reliefs would have created uneven due dates and confusion.
Whose fight was it – really?
CAs led because we feel the heat first. But the liability is the taxpayer’s. When chambers and trade bodies stay muted, it creates the perception that “CAs always ask for extensions.” In truth, extensions protect businesses from bad filings and unfair fines.
The tired cycle persists: past extensions tempt client delays; the government assumes professionals will “ask again”; and practitioners get crushed between incomplete data and rigid dates.
What must change-now
1. A joint voice: Industry chambers + ICAI should co-own the ask; CAs shouldn’t fight alone.
2. Client discipline: No more last-minute data dumps; enforce internal cut-offs.
3. Administrative preparedness: Release all utilities by April; publish portal SLAs and a real helpdesk.
4. Predictable buffers: When non-audit ITRs move, pre-announce a proportional audit buffer to prevent September meltdowns.
The quiet victory
ICAI thanked the Ministry, calling the move “taxpayer-friendly.” Between the lines, the sentiment across firms was simpler: fairness restored. The extension didn’t reward procrastination; it recognised constraints and protected compliance quality.
My verdict: We don’t gain from extensions; we regain sanity-and accuracy. Next year, let industry stand with professionals, and policy plan ahead of us. Compliance should be about fairness and quality, not endurance.