Court grants relief in writ petition, deems bank account attachment during appeal unsustainable.

The court granted relief to the petitioner in a writ petition seeking to quash an order and direct the disposal of an appeal against an assessment order. The court found the attachment of the petitioner's bank account during the appeal and without deciding an application under section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act to be legally unsustainable. The court directed the authority to decide on the application and kept the impugned order in abeyance until a decision was made, ensuring the petitioner's rights were protected. The court disposed of the writ petition with directions to decide on the application within four weeks, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues:
1. Relief sought through writ petition for quashing an order and directing the disposal of an appeal.
2. Legality of an order attaching a bank account during the pendency of an appeal.
3. Application under section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act and its impact on the impugned order.
4. Judicial review of the impugned order and the relief granted by the court.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking relief to quash an order and direct the disposal of an appeal. The appeal was filed against an assessment order for the year 2004-05. The petitioner also made an application under section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act before the Income-tax Officer. The court noted that the appeal was pending before the second respondent-Commissioner (Appeals) and that the impugned order attaching the petitioner's bank account was made without passing any order on the application filed under section 220(6).

2. The court considered the petitioner's argument that the attachment of the bank account, while the appeal was pending and the application under section 220(6) was not decided, was legally unsustainable. After hearing both parties, the court held that the impugned order was passed without deciding the application under section 220(6) and directed the third respondent to pass appropriate orders on the application within four weeks. Until a decision was made on the application, the court ordered the impugned order to be kept in abeyance.

3. The court's decision to grant relief to the petitioner was based on the procedural irregularity of not deciding the application under section 220(6) before attaching the bank account. By directing the third respondent to decide on the application and keeping the impugned order in abeyance until then, the court ensured that the petitioner's rights were protected during the appeal process.

4. The writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the third respondent to pass orders on the application within four weeks. The court made it clear that the impugned order would remain in abeyance until a decision was made on the application. No costs were awarded in the case, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed as a consequence of the judgment.

---