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

PDF · subscribers
CWP/14400/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01079307202519 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 notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was contrary to the notification dated 29.03.2022 mandating faceless assessment. The respondent did not dispute that the case was covered by two previous judgments of the High Court, namely Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India. Consequently, following the precedent set by these judgments, the Court held that the impugned notice and subsequent assessment order were invalid. The petition was allowed in terms of the relief granted in the cited cases.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Glenview Resorts Kasauli LLP Resorts, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 04.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an assessment order and demand notice dated 29.04.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-2021. The primary contention was that the impugned notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was impermissible according to a notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance, mandating faceless assessment for such notices. The respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Chandigarh, did not dispute this fact.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 04.03.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, contrary to the mandate of faceless assessment stipulated by the notification dated 29.03.2022. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is impermissible as per the notification dated 29.03.2022, requiring faceless assessment. They relied 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 the fact that the petitioner's case was covered by the aforementioned judgments of this Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

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. 139 ) CWP No.14400 of 2025 Date of decision: 19.05.2025 Glenview Resorts Kasauli LLP Resorts .....Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Chandigarh .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Salil Kapoor, Advocate and Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Junior Standing Counsel for the respondents-Income Tax Department. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) (1) Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; assessment order and demand notice dated 29.04.2025 (Annexure P-8) for AY 2020-2021. (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 not have been done because in terms of the notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-9), issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government SUNIL YADAV 2025.05.22 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order. Chandigarh

CWP No.14400 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. (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 his 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

19.05.

2025

( LAPITA BANERJI ) sunil yadav

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SUNIL YADAV 2025.05.22 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order. Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →