Allowed¶23

Glenview Resorts Kasauli LLP v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 Chandigarh

Punjab & Haryana HC13 May 2025CWP/13586/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Income Tax - notice u/S 148, Income Tax Act 1961 - issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - challenge on ground that per Ministry of Finance notification dated 29.03.2022 notice could be issued only by faceless assessment - notice quashed - petition allowed - CWP No.13586 of 2025, Glenview Resorts Kasauli LLP v. DCIT Central Circle 1, Chandigarh, decided 13.05.2025 (P&H HC, Deepak Sibal J.) - following Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP 15745/2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP 21509/2023).

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 22.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer quashed, with liberty to the respondent to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. ¶23

Glenview Resorts Kasauli LLP Vs Deputy Commissioner of… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned notice dated 22.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer quashed, with liberty to the respondent to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 22.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is sustainable, given that in terms of the notification dated 29.03.2022 issued by the Ministry of Finance it could have been issued only by way of faceless assessment.

¶13

Court's answer

In terms of the law laid down in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (Co-ordinate Benches, which the respondent's counsel did not dispute covered the petitioner's case), the impugned notice dated 22.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is quashed, with liberty to the respondent to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (coram: Deepak Sibal and Lapita Banerji, JJ.; oral judgment by Deepak Sibal, J.) allowed CWP No.13586 of 2025 filed by Glenview Resorts Kasauli LLP challenging a notice dated 22.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) issued to it by the Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle 1, Chandigarh under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's primary ground was that the notice had been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer although, in terms of the notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-3) issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, it could have been issued only by way of faceless assessment. Relying on two Co-ordinate Bench decisions of the same Court - Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No.15745 of 2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No.21509 of 2023, decided 29.07.2024) - whose coverage of the petitioner's case the respondent's counsel did not dispute, the Court quashed the impugned notice with liberty to the respondent to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

( Sr. No. 119 ) CWP No.13586 of 2025 Date of decision: 13.05.2025

¶3

Glenview Resorts Kasauli LLP Kasauli Resorts

¶4

.....Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle 1, Chandigarh

¶7

.....Respondent

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

¶9

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

¶10

Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Junior Standing Counsel for the respondent.

¶11

¶12

DEEPAK SIBAL, J. ( Oral )

¶13

(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.

¶14

SUNIL YADAV 2025.05.14 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order. Chandigarh

¶15

CWP No.13586 of 2025

¶16

[2]

¶17

(2) In support of his afore submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court :-

¶18

(i) CWP No.15745 of 2024 - Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024.

¶19

(ii) CWP No.21509 of 2023 - Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024.

¶20

(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

¶21

Benches of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s and Jasjit Singh’s cases (supra).

¶22

(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.

¶23

(5) The petition is allowed in the above terms.

¶24

(DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE

¶25

13.05.2025 ( LAPITA BANERJI ) sunil yadav JUDGE

¶26

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No

¶27

SUNIL YADAV 2025.05.14 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order. Chandigarh

Glenview Resorts Kasauli LLP v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Glenview Resorts Kasauli LLP v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Srishti Enterprises Vs Panjab University, Chandigarh and Anr.

Dheer Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ms Rashi Impex Vs Advisor to the Administrator, Ut Chandigarh & Others

Glenview Resorts Kasauli LLP Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 Chandigarh

Glenview Resorts Kasauli LLP Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 Chandigarh

Glenview Resorts Kasauli LLP Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 Chandigarh