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

PDF · subscribers
CWP/14665/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01080830202521 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 assessment order, demand notice, and penalty notices were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is contrary to the notification dated 29.03.2022 mandating faceless assessment. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the High Court, Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. The respondent's counsel conceded that the case was covered by these precedents. Therefore, following the law laid down in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's and Jasjit Singh's cases, the High Court allowed the petition. The operative direction was to quash the impugned notices and assessment order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Glenview Resorts Kasauli LLP, has filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 29.04.2025 passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a demand notice dated 29.04.2025 under Section 156, and penalty notices dated 29.04.2025 under Section 274, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2022-2023. The primary contention of the petitioner is that these notices were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is impermissible as per a notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance, requiring such matters to be handled through faceless assessment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order, demand notice, and penalty notices for AY 2022-2023, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, are valid in light of the notification mandating faceless assessment? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 144, 156, 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Ministry of Finance notification dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's contention: The impugned notices are invalid because they were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, contrary to the mandatory faceless assessment procedure stipulated by the Ministry of Finance notification dated 29.03.2022. The petitioner relies on this Court's judgments in CWP No.15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others) and CWP No.21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others). Revenue's contention: The respondent's counsel does not dispute that the case is covered in favour of the petitioner by the aforementioned judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 156,Section 274

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. 135 ) CWP No.14665 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 assessment order dated 29.04.2025 (Annexure P-8) passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short - 1961 Act); demand notice dated 29.04.2025 (Annexure P-8) issued under Section 156 of the 1961 Act and penalty notices dated 29.04.2025 (Annexure P-8) issued under Section 274 of the 1961 Act for AY 2022-2023. (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.14665 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 respondents 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 →