The petitioners were farmers and were doing agricultural activities.They had sold agricultural goods out of the produce from the joint holding land with their uncle KBG and out of the sale proceedings, certain amount was deposited in the joint account of the petitioners with their uncle Kirit Bachubhai Gamit. When the petitioner approached the Bank for withdrawal of the said amount, they were informed that there was attachment over the joint account for outstanding of their uncle by the Income Tax Department.The petitioners had challenged the issuance of notice under section 226(3) whereby the authority had made attachment over the account.When impugned notice under section 226(3) is issued for recovery of the outstanding dues of Kirit Bachubhai Gamit  who is defaulter in making payment of dues to the department, merely because the petitioners were joint account holders, no separate notice is required to be issued to the petitioners for having joint account as secondary holder in view of provisions of section 226(3)(iii).Court held that on perusal of the provisions of section 226(3)(iii), it is clear that notice is required to be forwarded to the assessee 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 petitioner. Meaning thereby notice is required to be issued, as per aforesaid provisions, from whom amount is due and not to joint account holder. If the petitioners have any grievance against recovery of the above dues in the account of their uncle along with them, they can initiate necessary proceedings in accordance with law before appropriate forum. Petition is dismissed.