The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central), Rajasthan,Room v. Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd., 76, Dhuleshwar Gardens,Jaipur(Pan

[2025:RJ-JP:7837-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 8/2025 The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central), Rajasthan,Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, Lic Building, Bhawani Singh Road,Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur-302005. ----Appellant Versus Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd., 76, Dhuleshwar Gardens,Jaipur(Pan/gir No.-Aaacf8368D). ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr.Siddharth Bapna withMr.Meyhul Miittal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR 21/02/2025 Order 1.This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short the Act) is filed against the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short the Tribunal) dated 7.3.2024. 2.The brief facts are that the respondent-company on05.08.2016 was assessed under Section 143(1) of the Act forassessment year 2015-16. On the basis of survey conducted onthe premise of the respondent, re-assessment proceedings wereinitiated. The proceedings culminated in reassessment order dated17.12.2018 and assessing officer (for brevity ‘AO’) disalloweddeduction under Section 10AA of the Act. On 25.02.2019, re-assessment order was rectified. The revisional authority vide orderdated 17.3.2021 set aside the assessment and rectification ordersand the matter was remanded to pass assessment afresh after recording findings with regard to eligibility of the respondent toclaim exemption under Section 10AA of the Act. The respondentsucceeded before the tribunal, the revision order was set aside.Hence, the present appeal. 3.Learned counsel for the respondent raises objection withregard to maintainability of the appeal in view of Circular 9 dated17.9.2024. The argument is that the only dispute is with regardto deduction claimed under section 10AA and in case thedepartment succeeds and entire deduction is disallowed, the taxeffect would be less than two crores. 4.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Circular 9retains the exceptions provided in Circular 5 dated 15.03.2024.The argument is that this appeal 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 the tax effect is not quantified. Learned counsel for theappellant on instructions fairly submits that even if the entirededuction is disallowed the tax effect would be Rs.1,32,00,000/-. Clause F of para 3.1 of the Circular 5 reads as under:- “f. where the tax effect is not quantifiable ornot involved, such as the case of registrationof trust or institutions under sections10(23C), 12A/12AA/12AB of the Act, orderpassed u/s 263 of the Act, etc. The referenceto the cases involving sections referred here,where it is not possible to quantify tax effector tax effect is not involved, is for the purposeof illustration only.” 5.The contention of the counsel for the appellant lacks merit.There is a distinction between ‘tax not quantifiable’ and ‘tax not quantified’. The exception is for order passed under Section 263 ofthe Act where the tax effect is not quantifiable. Taking the case ofthe department at the highest and even if order of the revisionalauthority is upheld, the tax effect would be less than two crores. 6.The demand might not have been quantified but remand waswith regard to deduction claimed under Section 10AA and themaximum tax effect can be quantified at this stage, which wouldbe less than two crores. 8.In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed as notmaintainable in view of Circular 9 dated 17.9.2024. The proposedsubstantial question of law is kept open. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Brijesh Whether reportable: Yes