GLENVIEW RESORTS KASAULI LLP vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13870/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01076483202515 May 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the law laid down in the two previously decided cases, Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others, and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others. The Court found that the respondent did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by these judgments. Therefore, in terms of the precedent, the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was set aside. The Court granted liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Glenview Resorts Kasauli LLP, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The petitioner argued that the notice was invalid because it was issued in terms of a notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, which mandated faceless assessment. The petitioner contended that the impugned notice could only have been issued by way of faceless assessment. The respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by previous judgments of the Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer contrary to the faceless assessment procedure mandated by the notification dated 29.03.2022, thereby requiring it to be issued only through a faceless assessment mechanism? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice was invalid as it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas the notification dated 29.03.2022 mandated that such notices should be issued only through the faceless assessment procedure. The petitioner relied on two judgments of the High Court: CWP-15745-2024, Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024, and CWP-21509-2023, Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024. Revenue's Contention: The respondent did not dispute the facts and conceded that the petitioner's case was covered by the aforesaid two judgments rendered by the co-ordinate Benches of the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-13870-2

IN THE Glenview Reso

Deputy Comm

CORAM : H

H

Present : M

fo

M M

fo

DEEPAK SIB

C dated 22.03.20 under Section challenge rais issued by the done because i issued by the notice could ha

2.

In petitioner plac i. CWP India 2025 (O&M) Sr. No.118

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

CWP-1387 Date of De

orts Kasauli LLP Kasauli Resort

… Versus missioner of Income Tax, Central

… HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. Lokesh Garg, Advocate, or the petitioner. Mr.Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing C Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing C or the Income Tax Department-re *** BAL, J. (Oral)

Challenge made through the ins 025 (Annexure P-2) issued to the 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1 ed by the petitioner is that th Jurisdictional Assessing Office in terms of the notification dated Ministry of Finance, Governm ave been issued only by way of f n support of his afore submiss es reliance on the following two P-15745-2024, titled Jatinder S a and others, decided on 19.07.2 B AND HARYANA AT H 70-2025 (O&M) ecision : 15.05.2025

ts Village Nalwa, Solan …Petitioner

l Circle-1, Chandigarh

…Respondent AK SIBAL A BANERJI Counsel and Counsel, espondents. stant petition is to the notice e petitioner by the respondents 1961. The primary ground of e impugned notice has been r which could have not been d 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-3), ment of India, the impugned faceless assessment. sion, learned counsel for the o judgments of this Court:- 2024; and VANDANA 2025.05.16 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13870-2

ii. CWP other

3.

L that the case o through the af Benches of thi

4.

In Jatinder Sing dated 22.03.20 Officer, is here the petitioner i

5.

T

May 15, 2025 vandana

Whether speak Whether repor 2025 (O&M) P-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Sin rs, decided on 29.07.2024. earned counsel for the responde of the petitioner is covered in his foresaid two judgments rendered is Court in Jatinder Singh Bhan n the light of the above, in ter gh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh ( 025 (Annexure P-2), issued by eby quashed with liberty to the r in accordance with law. he petition is allowed in the abov

(DEEPA

J (LAPIT

J

5

king/reasoned :

Yes/No rtable :

Yes/No gh Vs. Union of India and ents does not dispute the fact s favour by the law laid down d by two different co-ordinate ngu and Jasjit Singh (supra). rms of the law laid down in (supra), the impugned notice y the Jurisdictional Assessing respondents to proceed against ve terms. AK SIBAL) JUDGE

TA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2025.05.16 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →