PHOENIX INFOCITY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

This order of PCIT is challenged before us broadly on two grounds. Firstly, that the PCIT cannot direct the learned Assessing Officer to conduct further enquiry to verify, without examining the aspect himself and giving a finding as to how the assessment order happens to be erroneous. learned AR submi�ed that all the details rela�ng to the AS-26 and also the reconcilia�on statement was submi�ed before the PCIT, but the PCIT did not look into the aspect by himself to determine the escapement of income with reference to such material, but directed the learned Assessing Officer to undertake such an exercise a�er giving an opportunity to the assessee, which is impermissible under the se�led law. He placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of D.G. Housing Projects Ltd., (2012) 20 Taxmann.com 587 (Delhi). Second ground is that all the requisite enquiry was made by the learned Assessing Officer on this aspect during assessment proceedings and it is only a�er receiving the explana�on of the assessee, assessment was complete. On these two grounds learned AR stated that the order passed under sec�on 263 of the Act is not maintainable.

Per contra, learned DR placing heavy reliance on the orders of the learned PCIT and submi�ed that since the learned Assessing Officer did not verify the difference that emerged between the income reflected in the 26AS statement and the interest income admi�ed in the ITR, learned PCIT is jus�fied in invoking the jurisdic�on under sec�on 263 of the Act.

We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. It could be seen from the no�ces dated 22/9/2019 and 7/12/2020 issued under sec�on 143(2) of the Act and sec�on 142 (1) of the Act that there was in fact an enquiry in respect of the details in form 26AS. The no�ce dated 7/12/2020 specifically says that the reason for selec�on for scru�ny was low receipt from the house property and ITR as compared to rental receipt in 26AS. Apart from this the PCIT no�ce of the details men�oned in 26AS of the assessee available in ITS data. Assessee also made available the details rela�ng to the reconcilia�on of income as per books in form 26AS and as a ma�er of fact learned PCIT referred to the same in his order. Instead of coming to a conclusion as to the erroneous nature of the assessment order basing on these details, learned PCIT le� such a ques�on open, without returning a finding as to the erroneous nature of the assessment order. On the other hand, while se�ng aside the ma�er to the learned Assessing Officer he directed the learned Assessing Officer to examine the taxability of interest income which is the difference between the interest income reflected in 26AS statement and the interest income admi�ed in the ITR. 5. To this set of facts, the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of D.G. Housing Projects Ltd., (2012) 20 Taxmann.com 587 (Delhi), is applicable on all fours and when the learned PCIT entertained a doubt as to the difference between the interest income reflected in the 26AS statement and the interest income admi�ed in the ITR and assessed, he himself should have conducted enquiry on that aspect and recorded his sa�sfac�on as to the erroneous nature of the impugned order insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, and without recording the sa�sfac�on of the twin condi�ons under sec�on 263 of the Act as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., vs. CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC). On this score, the assessee succeeds. In DG Housing projects Ltd (supra) Hon’ble Delhi High Court held in unequivocal terms that in the context of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar industries Co Ltd (supra), the phrase “prejudicial to the interest of Revenue” has to be read in conjunc�on with the erroneous order passed by the learned Assessing Officer; and that every loss of Revenue as a consequence of an order of learned Assessing Officer cannot be treated as a prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Apart from this we no�ced that there was an enquiry conducted by the learned Assessing Officer on the aspect of the discrepancies in respect of 26AS, assessee submi�ed the details and though the learned Assessing Officer did not discuss elaborately in the order passed under sec�on 143(3) of the Act, no adverse comments offered by him. Respec�ully following the decision referred to above, we find it difficult to sustain the order under sec�on 263 of the Act and accordingly crash the same.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 12th day of July, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (MANJUNATHA G.) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 12/07/2024 Pvv/SPS