MOHAN J.

All these matters raise one and the same question of law. Therefore, we propose to deal with them under a common judgment The facts leading to the writ appeals are as follows : The appellant is trust known as Thanthi Trust. This was created under an instrument of declaration of trust dated March 1, 1954. The purpose of the trust was to found Daily Thanthi Newspaper as an organ of educated public opinion for the Tamil reading public to disseminate news and ventilate opinions on all matters of public interest through the said newspaper. The appellant-trust is an assessee on the file of the respondent. Its permanent account number is P. A. No. 47,005-AZ-5117. The trust had been claiming exemption under section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, from the assessment year 1955-56 onwards in respect of its income. Though there were several proceedings in relation to the claim for exemption, ultimately, the Incometax Officer upheld the appellant's claim for exemption for the assessment years 1955-56 to 1961-62. After the coming into force of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Before the learned single judge (Ramanujam J.), it was argued that because there was no efficacious remedy under the Act, resort had to be had under article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further urged that the mere change of opinion will not enable the issue of notices under section 148(2) of the Act. The statutory provisions have not been properly complied with. The assessments for the years 1969-70 and 1973-74 are still pending in appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, the question of reopening the assessment does not arise. The object of issue of notices was to have roving enquiry which is not permissible in law.

The learned judge, on going through the notices, held that it was purported to be under section 143(2) of the Act. It merely called upon the appellant-petitioner before him to produce certain account books in connection with the assessment year 1969-70. Actually, the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on March 4, 1978. The petitioner before him had kept quiet on all these days. Therefore, he cannot challenge the consequential notice. In this view, the notice issued for the assessment year 1969-70, which was impugned in Writ Petition No. 10840 of 1981, could not be challenged. The pendency of the appeal would not be a bar to the reopening of the assessment. In this view, the learned single judge dismissed both the writ petitions (Writ Petitions Nos. 10840 and 10841 of 1981) Writ Appeal No. 539 of 1981 is directed against Writ Petition No. 10840 of 1981, while Writ Appeal No. 540 of 1981 is directed against Writ Petition No. 10841 of 1981.

To continue the narration of facts, it has already been noticed that the deed of declaration of trust was made on March 1, 1954. A supplementary deed was executed by the donor on June 28, 1961, directing that the surplus income of the trust should be utilised only for educational purposes. The appellant filed C. S. No. 90 of 1961 by way of originating summons in the High Court. The High Court held that the trustees were bound by the supplementary deed and, therefore, the entire income had to be spent for the purposes mentioned in the supplementary deed. On March 17, 1969, after the transfer of file from the Third Income-tax Officer, City Circle-II, to the Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle, notices were issued under section 143(2) of the Act to produce the books of account. Accordingly, the account books were produced for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1967-68. As noticed above, writ petitions have been filed for the years 1956-57 to 1961-62 as well as for the years 1965-66 to 1967-68. As seen above, the reopening of assessments for the assessment years 1956-57, 1958-59, 1960-61 and 1961-62 came to be quashed. However, the proposal to reassess was upheld in respect of the years 1957-58, 1959-60, 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. This was by order dated December 21, 19