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

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13589/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01075113202513 May 2025Bench: 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 dated March 22, 2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the precedent set by two earlier judgments of the same court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. The court found that the respondent had not disputed that these judgments covered the present case. Consequently, the court quashed the notice, granting liberty to the respondent to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Glenview Resorts Kasauli LLP, challenged a notice dated March 22, 2025, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Chandigarh, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was impermissible given the Ministry of Finance notification dated March 29, 2022, mandating faceless assessment for such notices. The respondent, the revenue, did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by previous judgments of the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is valid, when a notification mandates faceless assessment for such notices? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid as it contravened the notification dated March 29, 2022, which stipulated that such notices must be issued through a faceless assessment process. The petitioner relied on two High Court judgments: 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 did not dispute the petitioner's submission and acknowledged that the case was covered by the aforementioned judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

( Sr. No. 120 )

CWP No.13589 of 2025

Date of decision: 13.05.2025

Glenview Resorts Kasauli LLP Kasauli Resorts .....Petitioner

Versus

Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle 1, Chandigarh

.....Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present : Mr. Salil Kapoor, Advocate and Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel and

Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Junior Standing Counsel for the respondent.

* * *

DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) (1)

Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 22.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) issued to the petitioner by the respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 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-3), issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the impugned notice could have been issued only by way of faceless assessment. SUNIL YADAV 2025.05.14 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order. Chandigarh

CWP No.13589 of 2025

[2]

(2)

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.

(3)

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). (4)

In the light of the above, in terms of the law laid down in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s and Jasjit Singh’s cases (supra), the impugned notice dated 22.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondent to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. (5)

The petition is allowed in the above terms.

(DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE

13.05.2025

( LAPITA BANERJI ) sunil yadav

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No

Whether reportable : Yes / No SUNIL YADAV 2025.05.14 17:18 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 →