The Income-tax Officer must have a valid and relevant ground for forming the belief requisite under Section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to issue a notice for reassessment.

R.S.Narula, J.

1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, Jai Gopal Mehra, a member of the erstwhile Jaishi Ram Mehra (Hindu undivided family) of Amritsar, has impugned the validity of notices under Section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, dated November 16, 1960 (annexure "B" in respect of the assessment year 1943-44 and annexure "C"of the same date in respect of the assessment year 1944-45), addressed to Jaishi Ram (Hindu undivided family). Since names of several independent income-tax assessee units are likely to be mentioned in this judgment, it may be clarified at this stage that Jaishi Ram was the son of Kishen Das and formed during his lifetime a Hindu undivided family with his wife and his four sons including Jai Gopal Mehra, petitioner. Jaishi Ram in his individual capacity was a partner of a firm known as Walaiti Ram Jaishi Ram. There were several other partners in that firm, but none of them was a brother of the petitioner. Jaishi Ram (Hindu undivided family), with which assessee alone we are directly concerned in this case, was disrupted by an award dated September 12, 1960, registered with the Sub-Registrar, Amritsar, on January 5, 1961, It is stated by the petitioner that acomplete partition of the Hindu undivided family property was effected. By an order dated August 24,1965) passed by the Income-tax Officer under Section 25A of the 1922 Act, the disruption and partition was accepted by the income-tax authorities. Jaishi Ram died on October 23, 1961.

2. The income-tax assessment of the Hindu undivided family in respect of the assessment year 1943-44 was completed on the 3rd February, 1944. The assessment of the Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1944-45 was made on the 26th June, 1946. The assessment of the partnership firm in respect of the assessment years 1943-44 and 1944-45 was made by the orders of the Income-tax Officer, Amritsar, on January 18, 1944, and June 26, 1946, respectively.

3. Kisnen Das Mehra had made a will on December 10, 1943, wherein fee had made provision for the disposal of his property in favour of Jaishi Ram and others. According to the petitioner, Kishen Das Mehra was also a partner, till his death, in the firm Walaiti Ram Jaishi Ram. This allegation made by Shri Bhagirath Dass at the bar has been denied by Mr. Awasthy. Be that as it may, Kishen Das Mehra was not and could not be a partner of the firm during the assessment proceedings for the year 1944-45 as he had died on March 1, 1944. The petitioner has also alleged that the will of Kishen Das Mehra was produced before the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Amritsar, in connection with the proceedings in respect of the assessment year 1944-45. The said will of Kishen Das Mehra referred to a gift of six lakhs rupees having been made to Jaishi Ram Mehra for investment in Srinagar business.

4. On November 16, 1960, notice under Section 34 of the 1922 Act (annexure "B") was issued to Jaishi Ram (Hindu undivided family) by the Income-tax Officer, (Additional) C-Ward, Amritsar, wherein it was stated that he had reason to believe that the income of the Hindu undivided family assessable to income-tax for the abovesaid assessment year had been underassessed. The Hindu undivided family was, therefore, called upon to deliver the return in the prescribed form with in thirty-five days. Similar notice of the same date (annexure "C") was issued to the Hindu undivided family in respect of the assessment year 1944-45. In reply to the notice dated February 18, 1963, letters dated February 28 and April 9, 1963, were sent by the petitioners objecting to the validity of the notice on the basis of a Division Bench judgment of this court in Shahzada Nand & Sons v. Central Board of Revenue, [1962] 45 I.T.R. 233. After the judgment of this court in the case of Shahzada Nand had been reversed by the Supreme Court, [1966] 60 I.T.R. 392 (S.C.), the income-tax authorities took up the matter again and sent to the Hindu und