Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenuebuilding, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj v. Pratap Technocrats Private Limited, B

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 57/2024 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, New Central RevenueBuilding, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.). ----Appellant Versus Pratap Technocrats Private Limited, B-21, Shakti Bhawan, ShivajiGodara Colony, Jaipur. Pan/gir No. Aaicp3621R. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Adv. withMr. Aditya Khandelwal, Adv.Mr. Aditya Khandelwal, Adv. For Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharth Ranka, Sr. Adv. withMs. Satwika Jha & Ms. Apeksha Bapna, Mr. Rohan ChatterMs. Satwika Jha & Ms. Apeksha Bapna, Mr. Rohan Chatter HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 27/09/2024-AVNEESH JHINGAN, (J) : 1.This appeal under Section 260A is filed against the orderdated 18.07.2023 passed by learned Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Jaipur (for short 'Tribunal'). 2.The brief facts are that the respondent-assessee filed incometax return declaring total income of Rs.24,87,27,450/- pertainingto Assessment Year 2018-2019. The case was taken up in scrutinyand the return income was accepted. The matter was taken by thePrincipal Commissioner Income Tax, Jaipur-I under Section 263 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') on the ground thatthe assessee had not furnished Form 10DA along with the return,resultantly, the deduction of Rs.3,01,18,395/- claimed u/S 80JJAA ought to have been disallowed. The matter was remanded to theAssessing Authority to frame the assessment in view of theobservations made by the Commissioner with regard to deductionunder Section 80JJAA, the Tribunal accepted the appeal of theassessee. Hence the present appeal. 3.Learned counsel for the respondent raises a preliminaryobjection on the maintainability of the appeal in view of theCircular 9 dated 17.09.2024. The contention is that taking thecase of the Department at the highest, the entire deduction evenif disallowed, the tax demand would be less than two crores. It isfurther argued that non-filing of the Form 10DA along with thereturn, in itself, cannot be a ground for disallowing the deduction,has been decided in favour of the assessee by the jurisdictionalCourt. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that Circular 9retains the exceptions provided in Circular 5 dated 15.03.2024.The argument is that the case in hand falls within the exception inClause F of para 3.1 of Circular 5 of 2024. The appeal ismaintainable as the order is passed under Section 263 of the Actand tax effect is not quantifiable. 4.The contention of the counsel for the appellant lacks merit.There is a distinction between 'tax not quantifiable' and 'tax notquantified'. 5.In the present case, the contention of the counsel for therespondent that even taking the case at extreme, the disallowanceof deduction would be of Rupees Three Crores approximately andthe tax effect would be of Rupees One Crore odd approximately. 6.In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed as notmaintainable in view of Circular 9 of 2024. The proposedsubstantial question of law is kept open. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J 110-Chandan/Rahul Whether Reportable:Yes / No