Jammu and Kashmir High Court
WP(C)/1753/2024 of ARJUN AMIA Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX AND ANR. on 4 November 2025
No. 20 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 1753/2024 CM(4727/2024) Arjun Amia …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s). Through: Mr. Syed Faisal Qadri, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mariya, Advocate. Vs. Principal Commissioner Income Tax and Anr.
Serial No. 20
Regular Cause List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) 1753/2024 CM(4727/2024)
Arjun Amia
…Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s).
Through:
Mr. Syed Faisal Qadri, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mariya, Advocate.
Vs.
Principal Commissioner Income
Tax and Anr.
...Respondent(s).
Through:
Mr. Umar Rashid, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
04.11.2025
1. Impugned in this petition, filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are three notices issued under Section 148-A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), dated 26th March, 2024, notice under Section 148-A(d) of the Act dated 18th April, 2024 and notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 18th April, 2024.
2. Since the assessment under Section 148 of the Act is yet to be made and the petitioner has only been asked to appear in pursuance of the satisfaction derived by the Assessing Authority in terms of Section 148-A(d) of the Act, therefore, this petition is premature at this Stage. We are saying so because the petitioner shall have ample opportunity to appear before the Assessing Authority and take all possible pleas available to him to defend his interest. Needless to say in case the ultimate order of assessment under Section 148 is passed against his interest, the petitioner will have ample remedies under the Act for redressal of his grievance.
3. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed as premature, leaving it open to the petitioner to take all pleas including the plea of jurisdiction before the competent authority. We need not say that once such pleas are taken, the Assessing Authority is under an obligation to deal with and decide the same in accordance with law. We further make it clear that the period spent by the petitioner in this court shall be excluded from computing the period of limitation prescribed under Section 148 of the Act.
4. Dismissed as premature.
5. (SANJAY PARIHAR)
(SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE
JUDGE SRINAGAR 04.11.2025 “Shahid Manzoor”