ORDER : 1. The petitioner has essentially called in question the third respondent's assessment order dated 29.12.2022 [Annexure-A] under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, 'the Act'] while seeking directions to the fourth respondent to lift the attachment of his bank account bearing No. 04260010000559 with M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank. 2. Sri Malhar Rao K. the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned assessment order is consequent to the documents purportedly seized during the search at the petitioner's business premises. The transactions, which even according to the impugned assessment order relate to the period between 2014 to 2019, have been brought into assessment for the assessment year 2021-22, and it would be irrefutable that these transactions cannot be brought into assessment during the current assessment year 2021-22. This has resulted in additional income of Rs.12,49,86,194/- [Rs. Rs.12,29,86,194/- + Rs.20,00,000/-] (1) The assertion is also that Rs.20,00,000/- is taken twice, one as part of advances during the period 2014-15 and another as protective addition. 3. Sri Malhar Rao K further submits that according to the impugned assessment order, the notice is issued under Section 144 of the Act, and the petitioner is not served with this notice. However, it is undisputed that as the petitioner has appeared before the assessing officer on 13.12.2022 and 24.12.2022, the assessment order is framed under the provisions of Section 143(3) of the Act. He argues that if notice is issued under section 144 of the Act, the assessment could not have been framed under section 143(3) of the IT Act, and these two grounds render the impugned order without jurisdiction. 4. Sri M. Dilip, the learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the advances totaling to a sum of Rs. 12,29,86,194/- is brought into assessment on examination of the financials submitted by the petitioner after the search and as it is ascertained that the advances are not disclosed in the books of accounts. He argues that the petitioner has failed to discharge even the minimum onus with respect to these advances. 5. Significantly, Sri M. Dilip does not dispute that even as per the details extracted in the impugned assessment order, the transactions totalling to a sum of Rs.12,29,86,194/- are reflected in the bank transactions for the period between 2014 to 2019. He argues that the petitioner has failed to discharge even the minimum onus with respect to these advances. 5. Significantly, Sri M. Dilip does not dispute that even as per the details extracted in the impugned assessment order, the transactions totalling to a sum of Rs.12,29,86,194/- are reflected in the bank transactions for the period between 2014 to 2019. If it undisputed that the aforesaid transactions relate to the assessment years much prior to the present assessment year 2021-22, this Court is of the considered view that the third respondent should have considered framing the assessment in the light of the petitioner's specific defence that the transactions which relate to earlier assessment years could not have been assessed or brought to tax in the current assessment year. The impugned assessment order does not consider this aspect at all and as such, there must be interference on this ground. 6. Insofar as the other ground it would suffice for this Court to observe that, in the peculiarities of this case viz., the petitioner has appeared before the assessing officer after issuance of notice under Section 144 of the Act and has filed financials, if the reassessment is reframed under Section 143(3) of the Act upon examination of all questions there would be no room for the grievance that the proceeding, which is begun for the best judgment assessment, has resulted in an order under Section 143(3) of the Act. 7. The next question that this Court will have to consider is that should the petitioner be permitted to operate his account with M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank in No. 04260010000559 while the third respondent reconsiders the framing of assessment order in the light of the petitioner's grievance. Sri M. Dilip submits that the petitioner's principal grievance is that the transactions pertaining to the period from 2014 to 2019 is brought into assessment for the current assessment year 2021-22, and this Court's interference is also because of such ground. Hence, the petitioner must be called upon to deposit 20% of the remaining amount i.e., Rs.6,03,19,368/- subject to reframing of the assessment. 8. Hence, the petitioner must be called upon to deposit 20% of the remaining amount i.e., Rs.6,03,19,368/- subject to reframing of the assessment. 8. Sri Malhar Rao K, on the other hand tries to persuade this Court against imposing any condition on the petitioner operating his account asserting that even the amount of Rs.5,60,00,000/ which is brought into assessment as unexplained investment relates to the year 2018-19; if the terms are stringent, the petitioner will not be able to defray the salary expenses and meet statutory financials, and this will shut down the petitioner's business. 9. On a careful consideration of these submissions, and the undisputed fact that the balance is about Rs.1,25,00,000/- this Court is of the view that the third respondent must reframe the assessment order for the relevant year expeditiously within a time frame and the petitioner until then should be permitted to operate his account with M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank bearing No. 04260010000559 subject to maintaining a certain reasonable minimum balance. For the foregoing, the following: ORDER: (i) The writ petition is allowed in part and the third respondent's assessment order dated 29.12.2022 as per Annexure-A under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is quashed. The third respondent shall reframe assessment for the assessment year 2021-22 within six [6] weeks from the petitioner's first date of appearance after this order with due opportunity to the petitioner. (ii) The petitioner until then is permitted to operate his account with M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank bearing No. 04260010000559 subject to maintaining a minimum balance of Rs.75,00,000/-. The petitioner without further notice shall appear before the third respondent on 05.04.2023.