Allowed¶19

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

Punjab & Haryana HC15 May 2025CWP/13870/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab and Haryana High Court, CWP-13870-2025 (O&M), decided 15.05.2025 by Deepak Sibal, J. (with Lapita Banerji, J.): Section 148 Income Tax Act, 1961 notice dated 22.03.2025 issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer quashed; post Ministry of Finance notification dated 29.03.2022 such notices must issue only through faceless assessment; followed coordinate Bench rulings in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP-15745-2024, 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP-21509-2023, 29.07.2024); respondents granted liberty to proceed in accordance with law; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the notice dated 22.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. ¶19

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

¶1

CWP-13870-2025 (O&M)

¶2

Sr. No.118

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP-13870-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 15.05.2025

¶5

Glenview Res o rts Kasauli LLP Kasauli Resor t s Village Nalwa, Solan … Petitioner Versus Deputy Com m issioner of Income Tax, Centra l Circle-1, Chandigarh

¶6

… Respondent

¶7

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

¶8

Present : M r. Lokesh Garg, Advocate, f o r the petitioner.

¶9

M r.Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing C ounsel and M r. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing C ounsel, f o r the Income Tax Department-r e spondents. ***

¶10

DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

¶11

C hallenge made through the in s tant petition is to the notice dated 22.03.2 0 25 (Annexure P-2) issued to th e petitioner by the respondents under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1 961. 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 i n terms of the notification date d 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-3), issued by the Ministry of Finance, Govern m ent of India, the impugned notice could h a ve been issued only by way of f aceless assessment. 2. I n support of his afore submis s ion, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following tw o judgments of this Court:-

¶12

i. CW P -15745-2024, titled Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07. 2 024; and

¶13

VANDANA 2025.05.16 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

CWP-13870-2025 (O&M)

¶16

ii. CW P -21509-2023, titled Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others , decided on 29.07.2024.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respond e nts does not dispute the fact that the case o f the petitioner is covered in hi s favour by the law laid down through the a f oresaid two judgments rendere d by two different co-ordinate Benches of th i s Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh ( supra) .

¶18

I n the light of the above, in te r ms of the law laid down in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh ( supra), the impugned notice dated 22.03.2 0 25 (Annexure P-2), issued b y the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is her e by quashed with liberty to the r espondents to proceed against the petitioner i n accordance with law.