VEERASWAMI J.

These petitions are to quash the orders of the Income-tax Officer, Circle I, Coimbatore, relating to the assessment year 1961-62. By those orders he reopened under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, earlier assessment orders made against each of the assessees, a Hindu undivided family, and included in each case a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the chargeable income. This is on the view that what was stated to be a loan taken by each of the assessees in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh from Gopalakrishna Mills (Private) Limited should be deemed to be dividend within the meaning of section 2(6A)(e) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer overruled a contention for the assessees that at the time the loans were made, Gopalakrishna Mills (Private) Limited had no accumulated profits within the meaning of section 2(6A)(e) and that the development rebate reserve with the company could not be considered as accumulated profits for the purpose of that section. The Income-tax Officer accepted the position that but for the development rebate reserve, there was no accumulated profits strictly so called, but was of the view that though the development rebate reserve would not be available for