Appeal allowed due to lack of jurisdiction under section 263. CBDT notification crucial.

The appeal was allowed due to lack of jurisdiction of the Pr. CIT, Shillong in passing the order under section 263. The Tribunal found that the impugned order was null and void as the Pr. CIT did not have jurisdiction over the case, as confirmed by the office of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong. The interpretation of the CBDT notification played a crucial role in establishing the lack of jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed solely on the jurisdictional issue, making other grounds raised by the assessee on merits academic.

---

---

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal due to jurisdictional issues.
2. Jurisdiction of the Pr. CIT, Shillong to pass order u/s 263.
3. Interpretation of notification S.O. 2754 dated 22.10.2014 by CBDT.
4. Impact of jurisdictional issues on the validity of the impugned order u/s 263.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay
The appeal was filed by the Assessee Foundation against the order of Pr. CIT– Shillong under section 263, with a delay of 668 days. The delay was attributed to the advice given by the previous CA, which led the foundation to believe that an appeal should not be filed. However, upon seeking a second opinion from a senior counsel, it was advised to file an appeal on jurisdictional grounds. The Tribunal noted that the delay was not intentional and condoned it to proceed with hearing the appeal on merits.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Pr. CIT, Shillong
The main grievance of the assessee was against the jurisdiction of the Pr. CIT, Shillong to pass the order under section 263. The additional grounds of appeal challenged the jurisdiction of the Pr. CIT based on a notification issued by CBDT. The Tribunal analyzed the notification S.O. 2754 dated 22.10.2014, which specified that cases of persons claiming exemption under certain sections fall under the administrative jurisdiction of CIT (Exemption) Kolkata. It was observed that the Pr. CIT, Shillong did not have jurisdiction over the assessee's case, as acknowledged in a letter from the office of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong. Therefore, the impugned order passed under section 263 was deemed null and void due to lack of jurisdiction.

Issue 3: Interpretation of CBDT Notification
The Tribunal interpreted the CBDT notification to establish that cases of entities registered under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, falling within specified categories, were to be under the jurisdiction of CIT (Exemption) Kolkata from a certain date. This interpretation formed the basis for determining the lack of jurisdiction of the Pr. CIT, Shillong in passing the impugned order under section 263.

Issue 4: Impact on Impugned Order
Due to the lack of jurisdiction of the Pr. CIT, Shillong, the impugned order passed under section 263 was considered null in the eyes of the law. The additional grounds challenging the jurisdiction of the Pr. CIT were deemed crucial and went to the root of the matter. As a result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed based on the legal issue of jurisdiction, rendering other grounds raised on merits as academic in nature.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee due to the lack of jurisdiction of the Pr. CIT, Shillong in passing the order under section 263, as per the CBDT notification and subsequent acknowledgments by the tax authorities.

---