CIT(E) v. Hyderabad Cricket Association
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
The reported Supreme Court order concerns condonation of a substantial departmental delay in a matter said to have similar connected cases, together with observations on litigation administration. The official order is required for exact directions.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: 261
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- Delay in departmental Supreme Court filing: The reported Supreme Court order concerns condonation of a substantial departmental delay in a matter said to have similar connected cases, together with observations on litigation administration. The official order is required for exact directions.
Material facts and background
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)…………………………….. Diary No. 33271/2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-10-2023 in ITTA No. 104/2022 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad] THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)
(IA No. 268504/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING; IA No. 268505/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS Date : 21-11-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE For Petitioner(s)
Mr. N Venkataraman, A.S.G. (N.P.) Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv. Ms. Madhulika Upadhyay, AOR Mr. V C Bharathi, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Advitya Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Ashiwan Mishra, Adv.
report. When the scrutiny report was submitted, a second scrutiny report was called for. Thereafter, since the matter had been delayed, the explanation was called as to why the delay had occurred. Then the papers were submitted to the Panel Counsel for drafting
within time. This is despite the fact that the Department has a team of legal experts to advice and to take necessary action. It appears that the Department has not trusted even upon its lawyers. 7.
circumstances of the case, as certain other matters on a similar point have already been entertained, we condone the delay in filing and refiling the special leave petition as a special case and direct it to be tagged with Civil Appeal No. 1294 of 2015. 8.
Appellant / assessee submissions
The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.
Revenue / respondent submissions
The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
report. When the scrutiny report was submitted, a second scrutiny report was called for. Thereafter, since the matter had been delayed, the explanation was called as to why the delay had occurred. Then the papers were submitted to the Panel Counsel for drafting
within time. This is despite the fact that the Department has a team of legal experts to advice and to take necessary action. It appears that the Department has not trusted even upon its lawyers. 7.
circumstances of the case, as certain other matters on a similar point have already been entertained, we condone the delay in filing and refiling the special leave petition as a special case and direct it to be tagged with Civil Appeal No. 1294 of 2015. 8.
Operative decision and relief
above paragraph, indicates that the petitioner has followed a long process of filing the special leave
timeframe. No one in the Department is taking care to shorten the process of filing the petition so that
within time. This is despite the fact that the Department has a team of legal experts to advice and to take necessary action. It appears that the Department has not trusted even upon its lawyers. 7.
circumstances of the case, as certain other matters on a similar point have already been entertained, we condone the delay in filing and refiling the special leave petition as a special case and direct it to be tagged with Civil Appeal No. 1294 of 2015. 8.
Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment
- No reliable precedent list was extracted automatically; use the full judgment for the citation chain.
This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.
Ratio and legal principle
The decision turns on Delay in departmental Supreme Court filing. The operative result is classified as Delay condoned as a special case; SLP tagged with Civil Appeal 1294/2015; merits not decided in this order. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Why this judgment matters
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Delay in departmental Supreme Court filing. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
Practitioner action points
- Use the judgment as a fact-specific precedent: match the statutory version, assessment period, procedural stage and evidentiary record before relying on the result.
- Check whether a later High Court/Supreme Court order has affirmed, reversed, distinguished or rendered the decision academic.
- For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.
Do not over-read this case
- The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy
- Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result.
- Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
How to apply this decision in practice
This Supreme Court decision should be used by matching the client’s facts to the precise controversy in the case—Delay in departmental Supreme Court filing—rather than by relying only on the result. Start with the statutory version applicable to the relevant year and compare it with 261. Amendments, notifications, later Supreme Court/High Court decisions and a different procedural stage can materially change the answer.
For an assessment or litigation file, retain the documents that prove the factual bridge on which the judgment turns: the original notice/order, replies and objections, acknowledgements of filing/service, ledger and banking trail where relevant, contracts or property instruments where relevant, and the complete appellate chronology. If the case succeeds on jurisdiction or natural justice, do not assume the same outcome where the authority cures that defect. If it succeeds on evidence, identify exactly which documents the Court or Tribunal considered persuasive.
Before citing the case, verify the latest appellate status and whether the decision is final, distinguished, stayed, reversed or confined to its facts. The packaged PDF and source trail should be read together with the current statutory text.
Finin2min reliance rule: cite the case for the narrow legal proposition actually decided, record any contrary authority, and attach the full judgment to the working paper or litigation file. This reduces the risk of a headnote or short summary being used outside its factual and statutory context.
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence
Decision support built around the judgment: reliance, fact match, Q&A, section impact, related-case network and practical next steps.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Reliance effect | Nationally binding, subject to a larger Bench, statutory amendment or later Supreme Court development. |
| Source integrity | Authenticated official-primary judgment copy is packaged. |
| Subsequent history | Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. |
| Finin2min status | Later-history check open |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- Your dispute raises the same core issue: Delay in departmental Supreme Court filing.
- The same statutory provisions or materially equivalent provisions apply: 261.
- Your matter is at a comparable penalty stage.
- Your documentary/evidentiary record is materially similar to the facts the Supreme Court considered: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)……………………………..
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court ruling changes the legal position.
- The statutory provision was amended for your year or transaction.
- Your evidence, transaction structure, notice chronology or procedural stage differs on a fact the judgment treated as material.
- The case succeeded on a narrow jurisdictional/procedural defect that the authority has cured in your matter.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in CIT(E)?
The reported Supreme Court order concerns condonation of a substantial departmental delay in a matter said to have similar connected cases, together with observations on litigation administration. The official order is required for exact directions.
Which facts mattered most to the result?
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)…………………………….. Diary No. 33271/2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-10-2023 in ITTA No.
What did the Supreme Court ultimately decide?
above paragraph, indicates that the petitioner has followed a long process of filing the special leave timeframe. No one in the Department is taking care to shorten the process of filing the petition so that within time. This is despite the fact that the Department has a team of legal experts to advice and to take necessary action.
What legal principle can be taken from this judgment?
The decision turns on Delay in departmental Supreme Court filing. The operative result is classified as Delay condoned as a special case; SLP tagged with Civil Appeal 1294/2015; merits not decided in this order. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Which provisions should be checked before relying on the case?
The case engages 261. The relevant statutory version for — should be checked together with any later amendment, notification, circular and controlling higher-court authority.
When is this judgment most useful to a taxpayer or adviser?
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Delay in departmental Supreme Court filing . Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
What could make this judgment distinguishable or unsafe to rely on?
The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result. Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
Can this judgment be cited as current law without another check?
Nationally binding, subject to a larger Bench, statutory amendment or later Supreme Court development. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. Authenticated official-primary judgment copy is packaged.
Section / provision impact
- 261 — 261 is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of delay in departmental supreme court filing. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
How the decision changes your analysis
Before using this authority, frame the issue under 261 and identify the decisive facts/evidence. The result should not be assumed from the case title alone.
The decision turns on Delay in departmental Supreme Court filing. The operative result is classified as Delay condoned as a special case; SLP tagged with Civil Appeal 1294/2015; merits not decided in this order. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Nationally binding, subject to a larger Bench, statutory amendment or later Supreme Court development. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work.
Case network: similar and different outcomes
Closest related cases in the Finin2min repository
Related cases with a different result
Related-case links are repository similarity connections, not a claim that one judgment cites or overrules another. Use the cited-authority list and later-history check for formal precedent analysis.
Working-paper citation
Full judgment and source trail
Read / download the authenticated official judgment PDF
| Packaged source class | Official primary copy, digitally signed and authenticated |
|---|---|
| Pages | 3 |
| SHA-256 | e35b96275ca0872d41a49413d63ec7a1db15e68c7e876b78f52480c06bd97cea |
| Original source URL | Official primary packaged locally; public page does not rely on third-party source links. |
| Source authentication | Official primary - valid embedded issuing-authority digital signature |