Serial No.33 SUPPL. CAUSE LIST-I IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 2722/2025 CM(7212/2025) Vinay Gupta …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate & Mr. Owais Shafi, Advocate Vs. Union Territory of J&K and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Umman Bashir, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER 07.11.2025 1. Impugned in this petition filed by the petitioner is a notice dated 4th March 2025 issued by the Assessing Authority under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”]. 2. The impugned notice is challenged by the petitioner on multiple grounds, including that issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is barred by limitation and, therefore, the Assessing Authority lacks jurisdiction to reopen the assessment made for the financial year 2017-18. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we find that in response to the impugned notice, the petitioner has already submitted his reply and has taken all the objections which were urged by MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 10.11.25 learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court to assail the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act. 4. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that it would be in the fitness of things to relegate the petitioner to the Assessing Authority, where he has already taken a specific objection to the sustainability of the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. 5. For the foregoing reasons, we find that this petition at this stage is premature and the same is, accordingly, disposed of by providing the Assessing Authority concerned shall consider the reply/objections filed by the petitioner in response to the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, after considering all the questions of fact and law raised by the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from today. 6. Needless to say, that in case the order passed by the Assessing Authority is adverse to the interests of the petitioner, he shall be at liberty to work out his remedies as available to him under law. 7. Disposed of. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 07.11.2025 “Mir Arif” MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 10.11.25