The court emphasized the importance of following the instructions issued by the CBDT in exercising discretion under Sub-section (6) of Section 220 of the Act and directed the CIT(A) to expedite the hearing of the appeals and dispose of them by a specified date.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Patnaik, J. - The miscellaneous case and the two writ petitions have been filed by one and the same petitioner the Bhubaneswar Stock Exchange and as they are connected with each other, they are being disposed of by this common order and judgment.

2. The relevant facts are that the Bhubaneswar Stock Exchange was taken over on 9th Jan., 2003 by the Administrator appointed by the Central Government u/s 11 of the Securities Contract (Regulations) Act, 1956. After taking over, the Administrator found that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(I), Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as "the Asstt. CIT") had issued notices to the petitioner u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') for the asst. yrs. 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02 stating that its income had escaped assessment and pending assessment had provisionally attached the fixed deposits of the petitioner in different banks and in response thereto the petitioner had claimed that its income was exempt from tax under the Act. On 9th Jan., 2003, the Asstt. CIT issued show cause notices to the petitioner for the said assessment years to show cause as to why exemption as claimed by the petitioner should not be disallowed and why the entire income of the petitioner for the assessment years under reference should not be treated as taxable as per the provisions of the Act. On 28th Feb., 2003, the Asstt. CIT issued orders of provisional attachment of the fixed deposits of the petitioner in UTI Bank Ltd., Stayanagar, Bhubaneswar, Canfin Homes, Kharavela Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Vysya Bank, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Canara Bank, Cuttack Road Branch, Bhubaneswar, Canara Bank, Bapuji Nagar, Bhubaneswar and Canara Bank, Sahid Nagar Branch, Bhubaneswar. In the said orders of provisional attachment it was stated that the assessment proceedings against the petitioner were pending for disposal and it was likely that substantial tax liability will be created on completion of the assessment and by the said provisional attachment orders, the aforesaid banks were prohibited and restrained from releasing the maturity proceeds of the fixed deposits and from allowing encashment from the said fixed deposits or any part thereof to any person. Thereafter, the Asstt. CIT passed orders on 13th March, 2003 making assessments u/s 147/143(3) of the Act for the asst. yrs. 1996-97 to 2001-02. The said assessments along with notice of demand u/s 156 of the Act were served on the petitioner.

3. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed writ petition WP(C) No. 3137 of 2003 in this Court on 26th March, 2003 and prayed, inter alia, for quashing the said orders of provisional attachment of the fixed deposits of the petitioner, for directing release of interest from the fixed deposits in favour of the petitioner and for quashing the notices u/s 148 of the Act, the orders of reassessment u/s 147 of the Act and the notices of demand. In the said writ petition, the petitioner also prayed for directing the opposite parties to notify the petitioner u/s 10 (23C) (iv) and (v) of the Act. On 28th March, 2003, the Court disposed of the writ petition WP(C) No. 3137 of 2003 by quashing only the notices of demand for the asst. yrs. 1996-97 and 1997-98 by which the petitioner was asked to pay the demand for the two assessment years within seven days of service of notice instead of the normal period of thirty days after holding that there was no basis for the AO to hold that it would be detrimental to the Revenue if the full period of thirty days was allowed to the petitioner to make the payment since the accounts of the petitioner had been frozen by the provisional orders of attachment. Since by the time the said order dt. 28th March, 2003, was passed by this Court, the IT Department had collected some pay orders from the banks pursuant to the notices of demand which were quashed, the Court also passed orders directing the Department to restitute the petitioner to the original posit