a)The assessee filed an application for stay before the assessing authority when the matter was pending before the CIT (A). The Assessing Officer did not dispose of the stay application without any explanation for nearly two years.
b)During the pendency of that application, the authorities passed an order for attachment of bank account of assessee under section 226(3) in haste without giving any prior notice.
c)The aggrieved-assessee filed the instant writ petition. One of the issues for consideration of High Court was:
Whether before taking recourse to section 226(3), the authorities should have issued a prior notice to the assessee?
The High Court held as under:
1)In Golam Momen v. Asstt. CIT  132 Taxman 826 (Cal.), it was held that mere filing of an appeal does not tantamount to stay of the recovery proceedings. Section 226(3) contemplates the notice to be issued to the assessee but it does not prescribe issuing of prior notice to assessee before taking course to the aforesaid provision.
2)The section does not postulate that before an action is set into motion, a notice is required to be served on the assessee but what is held is that if such an action is contemplated, the notice should also be served to the assessee. Therefore, the judgment rendered in the case of Golam Momen (supra) depicted the correct proposition of law. - ANIL KUMAR BANERJEE V. UNION OF INDIA  44 taxmann.com 465 (Calcutta)