TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 687
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in Punjab National Bank, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Axis Bank, Dadar, Mumbai , HDFC, Fort, Mumbai, Dena Bank Amli, and State Bank of India, Byculla, Mumbai. The petitioners have also made a grievance that after attachment an amount of Rs. 7,59,185/from HDFC Bank, Fort, Mumbai and Rs. 34,265/from State Bank of India, Byculla, Mumbai have been withdrawn without giving any notice to the petitioner before withdrawal in defiance of the law laid down by this Court in UTI Mutual Fund Vs. Income Tax Officer, 345 ITR 71. 3. The Assessing Officer on 27th March, 2015 passed an order under Section 143(3) r/w Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for Assessment Year 200910 determining the tax payable at Rs. 46.23 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e application of rectification u/s 154 of the assessee is hereby rejected. 3. The assessee is requested to pay the entire demand within 5 days from the receipt of this letter." 5. The petitioners state that a communication dated 8th March, 2016 from the Assessing Officer to the Punjab National Bank indicating the attachment of the petitioners' bank account under Section 226(3) of the Act was forwarded to it by Punjab National Bank. It appears that similar communications have been sent to other bankers also. Thereafter, on 14th March, 2016, the petitioners received a communication dated 10th March, 2016 from the HDFC Bank, Fort, Mumbai to the effect that the an amount of Rs. 7,59,185/had been withdrawn by the Revenue from the petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he petitioners' application for stay dated 14th April 2015 under Section 220(6) is still pending disposal before the Assessing Officer. This is so as the order dated 20th August, 2015 as reproduced hereinabove of the Assessing Officer has only dealt with the petitioners' Rectification Application and not with the petitioners' Application for Stay. Although, Mr. Malhotra learned Counsel for the Revenue submits that the third paragraph in that order calling upon the petitioners to pay the entire demand within five days, is a communication rejecting the stay application filed by the petitioner. We do not read it as such. In any case, it has been repeatedly held by this Court beginning with KEC Vs. Balkrishna, 251 ITR 158 and also l....