GLENVIEW RESORTS KASAULI LLP vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE I CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
CWP/14761/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01080806202521 May 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner's primary ground of challenge was that the impugned demand notice, penalty notices, and assessment order were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, despite a notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance mandating faceless assessment. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the High Court, CWP No.15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu) and CWP No.21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh), which had dealt with similar issues. Crucially, the counsel for the respondent did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered in its favor by the law laid down in these two prior judgments. Therefore, following the precedent set by Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, the Court allowed the present petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Glenview Resorts Kasauli LLP, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated 04.03.2024 under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, penalty notices dated 04.03.2024 under Section 274 of the Act, and an assessment order dated 29.04.2025 under Section 144 of the Act for Assessment Year 2021-2022. The primary contention was that these notices and the order were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was impermissible in light of a notification dated 29.03.2022 mandating faceless assessment. The respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Chandigarh, did not dispute this fact.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the demand notice dated 04.03.2024 under Section 156, penalty notices dated 04.03.2024 under Section 274, and assessment order dated 29.04.2025 under Section 144 for AY 2021-2022, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, are invalid in view of the notification dated 29.03.2022 mandating faceless assessment? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notices and order were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is contrary to the mandate of faceless assessment as per the notification dated 29.03.2022. Reliance was placed on this Court's judgments in CWP No.15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India) and CWP No.21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India). Revenue's Contention: The respondent did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by the law laid down in the aforementioned judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 156,Section 274,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ( Sr. No. 142 ) CWP No.14761 of 2025 Date of decision: 21.05.2025 Glenview Resorts Kasauli LLP Kasauli Resorts .....Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Chandigarh .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Salil Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Junior Standing Counsel for the respondent-Income Tax Department. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) (1) Challenge in the instant writ petition is to demand notice dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short - 1961 Act); penalty notices dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure P- 2) issued under Section 274 of the 1961 Act and assessment order dated 29.04.2025 (Annexure P-8) passed under Section 144 of the 1961 Act for AY 2021-2022. (2) The primary ground of challenge raised by the petitioner is that the impugned notice has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer which could have not been done because in terms of the notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-9), issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government SUNIL YADAV 2025.05.23 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order. Chandigarh

CWP No.14761 of 2025

[2]

of India, the impugned notice could have been issued only by way of faceless assessment. (3)

In support of his afore submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court:- (i) CWP No.15745 of 2024 - Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024 and (ii) CWP No.21509 of 2023 - Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024. (4)

Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner is covered in its favour by the law laid down through the aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s and Jasjit Singh’s cases (supra). (5)

In the light of the above, the present petition is allowed in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s and Jasjit Singh’s cases (supra), decided on 19.07.2024 and 29.07.2024, respectively.

(DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE

21.05.

2025

( LAPITA BANERJI ) sunil yadav

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SUNIL YADAV 2025.05.23 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order. Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 156

All 694 judgments and leading authorities on Section 156 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →