This compilation indexes twelve rulings — from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and various Indian High Courts — in which Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was a section of record. The cases span February 2018 through July 2026 and arise from a range of courts including the Kerala, Karnataka, Allahabad, Gauhati, Jharkhand, Telangana, Madras, and Patna High Courts, as well as ITAT Chandigarh and ITAT Mumbai. The compilation is intended for in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who need a structured reference to proceedings in which attachment or recovery actions under this provision were placed in issue alongside connected sections.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference drawn from publicly available judgments. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice, tax advice, or a recommendation of any course of action. Readers should consult the full text of each judgment and seek qualified professional advice before acting on any information contained herein.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 sets out one of the modes of recovery of tax available to the Income Tax Department. It empowers the Assessing Officer — or other authorised officers — to require any person from whom money is due or may become due to the assessee, or any person who holds or may subsequently hold money for or on account of the assessee, to pay to the Assessing Officer an amount not exceeding the amount of the arrear of tax due from the assessee. The notice issued under this provision is commonly referred to as a garnishee notice or a third-party attachment notice, and it is frequently directed at banks or other debtors of the assessee. The provision operates as part of the broader recovery machinery under Chapter XVII-D of the Act, and its validity is contingent on, among other things, the existence of a legally recoverable demand and compliance with the procedural requirements of the Act.

The 12 rulings

1. The Adampur Co-Op Agriculture Service vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - Sirhind

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Date: 14 July 2026
Sections engaged: 142(1), 143(2), 143(3), 144B, 145(3), 226(3), 249(3), 282, 40A(7), 80P
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 03/12/2025 for Assessment Year 2018-19, bearing ITA No. 1/Chd/2026 (PAN: AAALT0063C). Per the source preview, the assessee raised grounds including non-communication by earlier counsel, retirement of a concerned employee, and vacancy of the Secretary as reasons that prevented earlier filing of appeal, with the refusal to condone the delay being characterised as a denial of the statutory appellate remedy and a violation of natural justice. Additional grounds included challenge to the addition of Rs. 59,885/- on account of alleged increase in investment and the disallowance of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards gratuity provision.

2. Bernardo Borges, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 34(1)(1)

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Date: 8 July 2026
Sections engaged: 144B, 147, 148, 148A(d), 226(3), 250, 253(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 4523/Mum/2026) was directed against the order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi under section 250 of the Act for Assessment Year 2015-16 (PAN: AEBPB0112P). Per the source preview, a stay application (S.A. No. 93/Mum/2026) was filed alongside the appeal, arising out of the same assessment proceedings, and sought stay of recovery of the outstanding demand and consequential relief against recovery action; both matters were heard together.

3. K.K. Mohandas vs Union Of India

Bench: Kerala High Court
Date: 16 October 2025
Sections engaged: 132, 226(3), 225
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP(C) No. 37875 of 2025, citation 2025:KER:77075) came up for admission on 16.10.2025 before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam, with the court delivering its order on the same day. Per the source preview, the matter was procedural in nature at the stage captured; the full substantive grounds are not set out in the available text preview beyond identification of the parties and respondents, which included the Union of India, the Director General of Income Tax (Vigilance), the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), the Tax Recovery Officer (Central), and associated officers in Kerala.

4. U.P. Rajya Nirman Sahakari Sangh vs Union Of India Min.Of Finance Dept.Of

Bench: Allahabad High Court
Date: 8 October 2025
Sections engaged: 80P, 226(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (Writ-C No. 16125 of 2018, neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:61984-DB) was heard before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench. Per the source preview, the petitioner, a Cooperative Society, submitted that the tax deducted at source was refundable on the basis that it was exempt under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and that several applications for refund had been made along with Form 16A TDS certificates; the Department's position, as stated in the preview, was that it was unwilling to issue the refund on the ground that the TDS amount was not reconciled.

5. M/S. K. K. Builders vs Union Of India

Bench: Kerala High Court
Date: 29 July 2025
Sections engaged: 226(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP(C) No. 26970 of 2025, citation 2025:KER:56059) was finally heard and decided on 29.07.2025 by the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam. Per the source preview, the petitioner — a civil engineering contracting firm represented by its managing partner — approached the court aggrieved by a notice issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (described as Ext.P1 in the judgment); the substantive reasoning is not set out in the available text preview beyond the identification of parties and the nature of the challenge.

6. Pabitra Kumar Hira vs The Union Of India And 2 Ors

Bench: Gauhati High Court
Date: 2 May 2024
Sections engaged: 156, 264, 226(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP(C)/2683/2019, case no. GAHC010089102019) was decided on 02.05.2024 by the Gauhati High Court. Per the source preview, the petitioner challenged the legality and validity of a sale notice dated 27.03.2019, whereby immovable property of the petitioner was sought to be put on sale, and also an attachment order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the respondent authority; the full basis of challenge is not set out further in the available text preview.

7. M/S Elegant Builders And Developers vs Additional /Joitn/Deputy /Asst

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 16 April 2024
Sections engaged: 226(3), 143(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 10276 of 2024, neutral citation 2024:KHC:15503) was filed before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Per the source preview, the petitioner prayed to quash an impugned bank attachment notice dated 05.03.2024 bearing DIN and Letter No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1062043528(1) issued by Respondent No. 2 under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; the substantive grounds beyond the prayer are not set out in the available text preview.

8. Manglawati Sewa Sadan vs The Union Of India

Bench: Jharkhand High Court
Date: 11 January 2023
Sections engaged: 220, 226(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P.(T) No. 1270 of 2019) was heard before the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi. Per the source preview, one of the prayers in the writ petition sought a declaration that the action of Respondent No. 2 in not adjudicating the application for stay filed by the petitioner under Section 220 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on its own merits — and instead directing the petitioner to make payment of 20% of the disputed demand pursuant to the CBDT Office Memorandum dated 31.7.2017 as a condition precedent for considering the stay application — was arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the order dated 20.07.2018 passed by the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 6850 of 2018.

9. State Bank Of India vs Union Of India And 4 Others

Bench: Telangana High Court
Date: 27 July 2021
Sections engaged: 226(3), 222
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (Writ Petition No. 20646 of 2020) was filed by State Bank of India before the Telangana High Court. Per the source preview, State Bank of India, along with other consortium banks, had granted a loan of Rs. 133 crores to the 5th respondent-Company in 2012 for working capital, secured by a commercial property registered with CERSAI on 08.04.2000; the loan account was declared a Non-Performing Asset on 13.10.2012, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 were initiated, and the property was put to public auction on 26.10.2020 through an auction notice dated 15.09.2020, with M/s. Khargandhi Properties Pvt. Ltd. declared highest bidder for Rs. 4.66 crores.

10. M.Ravechandran vs The Principal Commissioner Of

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 14 February 2019
Sections engaged: 226(3), 263
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (Writ Petition No. 3670 of 2019 with WMP Nos. 4025 & 4027 of 2019) was filed before the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Per the source preview, the petitioner sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash an impugned notice under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 18.09.2018 and a subsequent modified notice dated 09.11.2018 issued to the fourth respondent (Salem Steel Plant) by the third respondent, relating to Assessment Year 2012-2013, and to direct respondents 1 to 3 not to initiate any further recovery proceedings till disposal of the appeal before the first respondent.

11. K.Chandrasekaran vs Tax Recovery Officer

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 27 August 2018
Sections engaged: 179, 226(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P. No. 20231 of 2018 with WMP Nos. 23717 to 23722 of 2018) was filed before the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Per the source preview, the petitioner challenged an order under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 purportedly dated 19.07.2018 (bearing No. TRC No.11/2014-15/TRO-INT.TAXN/2018-19; PAN: AAAC19403R) holding the petitioner jointly and severally liable for income tax arrears of M/s. Infodrive Software Limited, along with notices dated 31.07.2018 addressed to the petitioner's bankers under Section 226(3) of the Act, seeking to quash the same and to defreeze bank accounts with Axis Bank, ICICI Bank, and Bank of Baroda.

12. M/S. Sainik Food Pvt. Ltd vs The Principal Chief Commissioner Of

Bench: Patna High Court
Date: 8 February 2018
Sections engaged: 226(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16778 of 2017) was filed before the Patna High Court and decided on 08.02.2018. Per the source preview, the petitioner is a registered company and the respondents included the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, the Income Tax Officer (TDS) at Bhagalpur, the State of Bihar through the Department of Mines & Geology, and associated district and mines officers; the substantive grounds of challenge are not set out further in the available text preview beyond the identification of the parties.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Writ jurisdiction as the primary challenge route. Across the majority of cases in this compilation — including those from Kerala, Karnataka, Allahabad, Gauhati, Jharkhand, Telangana, Madras, and Patna High Courts — parties approached the relevant High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge attachment or recovery action taken under Section 226(3). This reflects a consistent pattern of taxpayers treating constitutional writ remedies as the principal avenue to contest these notices at the High Court level.
Section 226(3) arising alongside pending appellate proceedings. In multiple matters in this compilation (including M.Ravechandran vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Bernardo Borges vs ITO), the challenge to the attachment or recovery action was accompanied by, or arose in the context of, a pending appeal or stay application before an appellate authority. The interplay between continuing recovery action and unresolved appellate proceedings appears as a recurring feature across these cases.
Third-party and bank-directed notices. Cases such as K. Chandrasekaran vs Tax Recovery Officer and M/S Elegant Builders and Developers vs Additional/Joint/Deputy/Asst illustrate that Section 226(3) notices are frequently directed at banks holding the assessee's funds, with petitioners seeking defreezing of accounts as part of the relief, a pattern consistent with the garnishee character of the provision.
Interaction with liability-attribution proceedings. The K. Chandrasekaran matter (case 11) shows Section 226(3) bank notices being issued consequentially upon a liability order under a separate provision of the Act, indicating that challenges to the downstream attachment can be interlinked with challenges to the upstream liability determination.
Cooperative societies and exemption disputes. Two matters in this compilation (The Adampur Co-Op Agriculture Service, case 1, and U.P. Rajya Nirman Sahakari Sangh, case 4) involve cooperative societies where Section 80P exemption claims and TDS refund entitlements formed the substantive backdrop to the proceedings in which Section 226(3) appeared as a section of record, suggesting a recurrent fact pattern for this category of assessee.

How to use this compilation

This compilation functions as a structured index, not a substitute for the full text of any judgment. Each entry records only the identity fields and procedural/substantive information that could be verified from the source data provided. Before relying on any ruling for any professional or litigation purpose, researchers should retrieve the complete judgment from the relevant court portal (such as indiankanoon.org, the official High Court website, or the ITAT e-filing portal), verify that the ruling has not been stayed, reversed, or modified in appeal or review proceedings, and check whether any subsequent Supreme Court or High Court decision has altered the applicable legal position.

Researchers should also check for any relevant CBDT instructions, circulars, or office memoranda that may bear on the interpretation or application of Section 226(3) and related recovery provisions. The CBDT issues instructions periodically on the conditions for initiating recovery action while an appeal is pending, and these administrative directions may be relevant to the analysis of any individual case.

Finally, note that all twelve entries in this compilation carry the outcome field "Outcome not specified in source." This means the structured corpus did not capture a dispositive outcome in the extracted data for these rulings. The absence of a recorded outcome is not an indication that the proceedings were decided in any particular direction — it reflects a data limitation. Researchers must consult the full judgment text to ascertain the actual decision, any directions issued, and any conditions imposed by the court.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 226(3) Income Tax Attachment Notices: 12 Rulings (2018–2026)