Tax Notices Overturned; Cases Remitted for Reevaluation with Fair Hearing and Speaking Order Mandated.

The HC set aside the Bank Attachment Notices related to Assessment Orders for 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, remitting the cases to the first respondent for reevaluation within four weeks. The court mandated a fair hearing for the petitioner and emphasized the necessity of a speaking order under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court also acknowledged the petitioner's health issues and the lack of due consideration by the tax officer. The Writ Petitions were disposed of without costs, and associated Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Bank Attachment Notices based on Assessment Orders and pending appeals before CIT (Appeals); Non-disposal of applications under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; Allegations of high pitch demand and lack of response due to illness; Failure to challenge certain communications/letters; Requirement of speaking order under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested Bank Attachment Notices linked to Assessment Orders for the years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, alongside appeals before the CIT (Appeals). The petitioner also sought stays on recovery under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing health issues and discrepancies in turnover versus confirmed amounts in the Assessment Orders. The petitioner argued that the respondents' inaction on the stay applications warranted quashing the Bank Attachment Notices.

The respondents countered by highlighting unchallenged communications related to the Assessment Year 2017-2018 and lack of documentation from the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2018-2019. They contended that the petitioner's failure to challenge specific communications rendered the writ petitions dismissible. The court acknowledged the petitioner's health-related non-participation in prior proceedings, noting the ex-parte nature of the Assessment Orders.

The court emphasized the necessity of deciding the merits of the petitioner's contentions through the pending appeals. It criticized the lack of proper disposal of the Section 220(6) applications, citing the requirement for a speaking order as per Central Board of Direct Taxes guidelines. The court found the communications enclosed with the petitions indicative of a lack of due consideration by the tax officer.

Consequently, the court set aside the Bank Attachment Notices, remitting the cases to the first respondent for appropriate orders within four weeks. The court directed a reevaluation of the Assessment Year 2018-2019 orders and stressed the petitioner's right to a fair hearing. The judgment concluded by disposing of the Writ Petitions without costs and closing associated Miscellaneous Petitions.

---