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

CWP/13870/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Glenview Resorts Kasauli LLP challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the notice was improperly issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of being issued through faceless assessment, as required by a notification from the Ministry of Finance. The court referenced two previous judgments, Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, which supported the petitioner's position that such notices should be issued through faceless assessment procedures. Consequently, the court quashed the notice and allowed the respondents to reissue it in compliance with the proper procedures.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 747152 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India, Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: YOGESH PUTNEY; VAIBHAV GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: LOKESH GARG
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdictional Assessing Officer; Notice
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"CWP-13870-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Glenview Resorts Kasauli LLP Kasauli Resorts Village Nalwa, Solan Deputy Commissioner CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE Present : Mr. for the petitioner. Mr. Mr. Vaibhav Gupta for the Income Tax Department DEEPAK SIBAL Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 22.03.2025 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary ground of challenge raised by the petitioner is that the imp issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer which could done because in terms of the notification issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the impugned notice could ha 2. In support of his afore submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court: i. CWP India an 2025 (O&M) Sr. No.118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-13870 Date of Decision : Glenview Resorts Kasauli LLP Kasauli Resorts Village Nalwa, Solan … Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle …Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Lokesh Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department-respondents. *** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice .03.2025 (Annexure P-2) issued to the petitioner by the respondents under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary ground of challenge raised by the petitioner is that the imp issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer which could done because in terms of the notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the impugned ould have been issued only by way of faceless assessment. In support of his afore submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court: CWP-15745-2024, titled Jatinder Singh Bhangu India and others, decided on 19.07.2024; and Page 1 of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 870-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 15.05.2025 Glenview Resorts Kasauli LLP Kasauli Resorts Village Nalwa, Solan …Petitioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh …Respondent DEEPAK SIBAL LAPITA BANERJI , Sr. Standing Counsel and , Jr. Standing Counsel, respondents. Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice ) issued to the petitioner by the respondents 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 have not been dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-3), issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the impugned ve been issued only by way of faceless assessment. In support of his afore submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court:- Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of decided on 19.07.2024; and VANDANA 2025.05.16 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13870-2025 ii. CWP others 3. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner through the aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different co Benches of this Court in 4. In the light of the above, in terms of the law laid down in Jatinder Singh dated 22.03.2025 Officer, is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. 5. The May 15, 2025 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) CWP-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Singh others, decided on 29.07.2024. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner is covered in his through the aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different co Benches of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu In the light of the above, in terms of the law laid down in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra) .03.2025 (Annexure P-2), issued by the Officer, is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petition is allowed in the above terms. (DEEPAK SIBAL JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE 5 ther speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Page 2 of 2 Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact is covered in his favour by the law laid down through the aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different co-ordinate Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra). In the light of the above, in terms of the law laid down in (supra), the impugned notice ), issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed against petition is allowed in the above terms. DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2025.05.16 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "