DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. DYNAMIC CABLES LIMITED, JAIPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “A” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1539/JPR/2026 (Assessment Year:2019-20) DCIT Vs. Dynamic Cables Limited R. No. 310, 3rd Floor, F-260, Road No.13, Income Tax Department, Akhepura B.O. Jaipur NCRB, Jaipur �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AACCD 5741Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Addl. CIT Respondent by : Sh. Aditya Vijay, Adv. & Sh. Rohan Mittal, Adv. Date of Hearing 26.10.2026 Date of Pronouncement 27.10.2026 O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta, AM:- The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 30.03.2026 under

P a g e | 2 ITA No.1539/JPR/2026 Dynamic Cables Limited Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The grounds raised by the Revenue read as under:- i. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deciding the issue by placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the cases of Sharda Devi Chhajer and Jasjit Singh. However, the said judgments have not been accepted by the Department, and Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) have been recommended for filing before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, in the assessee's own case, the order of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20679/2025 dated 16.01.2026 has also been recommended for filing of SLP. Accordingly, reliance placed on these judgments by the Ld. CIT(A) is not final and is subject to further judicial scrutiny?"

ii. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) are invalid. While doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the true scope and intent of the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. Although the said Act introduced the faceless assessment scheme and automated allocation of cases, it does not expressly prohibit the JAO from issuing notices under Section 148. The statutory powers of the JAO to initiate reassessment proceedings remain intact and continue to operate alongside the faceless regime?"

iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in accepting the reasoning in Sharda Devi Chhajer that concurrent jurisdiction would result in administrative conflict. In fact, the allocation of functions between the JAO and the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) is complementary in nature. The JAO continues to play a critical role in risk assessment and information analysis, supported by access to systems such as the Risk Management Strategy (RMS) and the Insight Portal. Any interpretation rendering the powers of the JAO redundant would defeat the legislative intent and weaken the framework of effective tax administration?"

iv. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deciding the case by placing reliance on the judgment in Sharda Devi Chhajer, wherein it has been held that the JAO does not have jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148, is misplaced and not in consonance with other judicial precedents. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Triton Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (W.P. No. WPO/1566/2023 dated 13.09.2023) and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd. (W.P. (C) 1968/2023) have recognized that both the JAO and the faceless assessment units operate with concurrent jurisdiction under the Act. Further, the Hon'ble

P a g e | 3 ITA No.1539/JPR/2026 Dynamic Cables Limited Madras High Court in Mark Studio India Private Limited (order dated 20.12.2024 in W.P. Nos. 25223 and 25227 of 2024, etc.) has held that the JAO retains exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. These divergent judicial views clearly establish that the issue is debatable and not settled, and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have invalidated the notice by relying solely on one line of judicial interpretation?" V. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] has erred in holding that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) are invalid, without properly appreciating the legal position as clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters pending vide Diary Nos. 57737/2025, 37087/2025, 57395/2025, 55409/2025, and 32669/2025." The appellant craves the right to amend alter or add to any of the grounds of appeal given above. 3. The revenue in the present appeal has challenged the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) who allowed assesses appeal holding that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, in the present case was invalidly issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when as per law, it ought to have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jasjit Singh Vs. UOI & Others CWP No. 21509 dated 29.07.2024 and Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sharda Devi Chhajer & Anr. Vs. ITO in CWP No. 11787/2024 while quashing the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by the AO, and accordingly setting aside the assessment proceedings in the present case. 4. The ld. DR pointed out that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ITO Vs. Tej Partap Singh and others in Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2026 dated 10.04.2026 has set aside the order passed by the

P a g e | 4 ITA No.1539/JPR/2026 Dynamic Cables Limited Jurisdictional High Court and directed the High Court to pass order afresh considering the subsequent amendment made to the Section 148 of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was pointed out, has directed the High Court to pass the order by the 30th September 2026. Copy of the order of Hon’ble Apex Court was placed before us and attention drawn to para 22 -28 of the order as under:- …….. 22. Since the High Courts have primarily quashed the reassessment notices on the ground that the JAOS lacked competence to initiate such proceedings, and the very foundation of that view now stands altered by the amending legislation, the impugned judgments in favor of the assessees are set aside on this limited ground. The matters are accordingly remitted to the respective High Courts for fresh consideration. Ordered accordingly.

P a g e | 5 ITA No.1539/JPR/2026 Dynamic Cables Limited in this regard. No adjournments may be granted by the High Courts on mere asking of the parties. ……….. 5. Noting the above fact, and further considering that, the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue solely on the basis of the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, which has been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and no decision on merits has been given by the Ld. CIT(A), we consider it fit to restore the issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh, after the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court as directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 6. In view of the same, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27.10.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (KULDIP SINGH) (Annapurna Gupta) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 27.10.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

By Order, Mittali Digitally signed by: Mittali DN: CN = Mittali email = Asst. Registrar mittaligupta34671@gmail.com ITAT, Jaipur C = IN O = Personal Date: 2026.10.30 12:41:34 + 05'30'