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 distribution by way of dividends or profits, nevertheless, it, in a sense, represented accumulated profits like any other reserve, and the question whether the creation of a particular reserve was a statutory necessity or not was irrelevant in considering the substantial nature or character of the development rebate reserve. On that reasoning he further considered that it was not necessary to correlate the loans with any particular reserve or accumulated profits so long as the same accumulated profit was there with the company. The Income-tax Officer took that view because he thought the funds transferred from the development rebate reserve did not ipso facto go out of the funds of the company and they were only an appropriation out of the company's profits. There were certain other contentions also put forward before the Income-tax Officer, which he did not accept, but which we do not think it necessary for purposes of these petitions to refer to. The assessees filed appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore, which were actually heard by him on November 18, 1964. Pending those proceedings, they applied for stay of collection which the Income-tax Officer declined to grant. Thereafter, they moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and later the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, who gave a certain measure of relief, but not to their complete satisfaction. It was in these circumstances they moved this court with these petitions under article 226 of the Constitution Two main points were taken by the petitioners : (1) levy of tax on the amounts withdrawn by the assessees from the company temporarily was illegal and without jurisdiction, and (2) section 2(6A)(e) was ultra vires the Central Legislature. The second point is now concluded by Navnitlal C. Javeri v. K. K. Sen, Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, in which the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of that statutory provision. It is the first point, therefore, that is sought to be argued before us. For the revenue the objection is taken that since the assessees have a right of appeal and actually filed appeals, which were heard and orders are yet to be made, this court, in the exercise of its discretion under article 226, should, in view of that, decline to entertain these petitions. Since we have decided to accept this objection, we have not heard learned counsel for the assessees on the first pointArticle 226 of the Constitution is undoubtedly widely worded and does not place any restraint or restriction on the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under the article. Even the territorial limitation which originally existed has since been removed. Though the article refers to certain kinds of writs including c