( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against a notice dated 13th November 1963 issued by the Income-tax Officer Circle IV Ward-G Ahmedabad under section 148 of the Income-tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the new Act ). The notice is impugned as invalid on three grounds which we shall presently state. But in order to understand and appreciate those grounds it is necessary to state briefly a few facts. The petitioner was assessed to tax as an individual for the assessment year 1947 and his assessment was completed by the Income-tax Officer Ward E Circle II Ahmedabad by an order of assessment dated 31st January 1952. The Income-tax Officer thereafter received information that a certain profit alleged to have been made by one Natwarlal Manilal Pandit on sale or a plot of land bearing Survey No. 63 at Vastrapur really belonged to the petitioner since Natwarlal Manilal Pandit was merely a benamidar of the petitioner and that the said profit had escaped assessment by reason of the petitioner not having disclosed it at the time of the original assessment. The Income-tax Officer therefore after obtaining the approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax issued a notice dated 27 March 1956 under section 34 (1) (a) of the Income-tax Act 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the old Act ). The notice was attempted to be served by the process server on the petitioner at his residence on or about 31st March 1956. The petitioner was however not at his residence having temporarily gone out of Ahmedabad to Vatwa in order to attend the meeting of the Vatwa Panchayat of which he was the Sarpanch and the notice could not therefore be served on him personally at that time. On the process server making a report to that effect the Income-tax Officer directed the process server to effect service by affixing the notice on a conspicuous part of the petitioners house and pursuant to this direction the process server affixed the notice on the door of the petitioners house at about 9. 00 A. M. on 31st March 1956 in the presence of two witnesses who identified the house as that of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter received a letter dated 13th September 1956 from the Incometax Officer in which it was alleged that in respect of the sale of the plot of land at Vastrapur Natwarlal Manilal Pandit was a benamidar of the petitioner and that the income earned by him on the sale of that plot of land was really the income of the petitioner and was therefore liable to be taxed as income in the hands of the petitioner and the petitioner was accordingly called upon to submit a return of his income for the assessment year 1947-48. In reply to this letter the petitioner pointed out to the Income-tax Officer that no notice under section 34 (1) (a) was served on him and he was therefore not liable to furnish a return of his income but since the Income-tax Officer threatened to make an ex parte assessment the petitioner filed a return of his income under protest on 16th January 1957. In the return the petitioner showed the same amount of income which was determined in the original assessment. Dispite the objection raised by the petitioner that notice under section 34 (1) (a) was not served on him the Income-tax Officer proceeded to re-assess the income of the petitioner for the assessment year 1947-48 and passed an order dated 29th March 1957 determining the total income of the petitioner at Rs. 89 0 by including the profit alleged to have been earned by Natwarlal Manilal Pandit on the sale of the plot of land at Vastrapur as income of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the order of assessment and one of the grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal was that the order of assessment was bad since notice under section 34 (1) (a) was not served on the petitioner as required by the section. This ground was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who took the view that the service of