Kapur, J.

1. This is a petition by L.: Lachhman Dass Nayar and seven others for the issue of appropriate writs against the various officers of the Income-tax Department in regard to actions taken and orders passed by those officers.

2. The facts of this case are rather complicated and may therefore be stated at some length. Prior to the assessment year 1937-38 Lachhman Dass petitioner along with his seven sons formed a Hindu undivided family and were being assessed as such. For the year 1938-39 returns were made on the basis of partnership consisting of the joint Hindu family of Lachhman Dass with his seven sons as one partner having fourteen annas share and Daulat Ram one of the sons of Lachhman Dass as another partner owning two annas share. The Income-tax Officer refused to recognise this partnership as a partnership for the purposes of the Income-tax Act, but on appeal to the Appellate Tribunal it was held on 8th September 1942 that this firm was registrable, and the case being taken to the High Court at Lahore the decision was against the firm but their Lordships of the Privy Council ultimately held that the firm was registrable, as it was a valid partnership. This was on 29th July 1947.

3. For the assessment years 1940-41 to 1944-45 the assessment had been completed but was subsequently cancelled in consequence of the order, of the Lahore High Court. It appears that during the pendency of the proceedings which ended with the order in question no assessments were made on the returns which had been filed by the firm as constituted except for the year 1941-42. Later on as a result of proceedings being taken under Section 34, Income-tax Act the total income of the firm except of 1941-42 was assessed in the hands of the Hindu undivided family on 14th February 1945, but assessment in regard to other years was not made.

4. On 16th March 1949, Mr. Paras Parshad, Income-tax Officer, issued five separate notices under Section 34, Income-tax Act as amended by Act 48 of 1948 on the said firm and on the Hindu undivided firm and Daulat Ram as partners. These several notices were served on the various parties on 2nd April 1949. Under protest returns were made On the 13th June 1949 which showed that an income of Rs. 7,07,000/- was excluded from earlier returns. These secreted incomes were thus disclosed.

5. On 15th March 1950, the Income-tax Officer made five separate orders of assessment under Section 23(5) read with Section 34, Income-tax Act including the undisclosed income (upon the firm and carried the said income in the hands of the partners thereof in accordance with the provisions of Sectoion 23(5) (b) of the Act). On the same date the Income-tax Officer made further orders of reassessment on the undivided Hindu family and on Daulat Ram including in that the share of the profits of the said firm as computed on the re-assessment. Appeals were taken by the firm and the partners against these orders and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by an order dated 16th November 1950 set aside the assessments made on the firm on the various grounds stated in the annexure marked A attached to the petition. The appeal for the year 1940-41 of the Hindu undivided family was dismissed but the others were kept pending. Thus four appeals of the Hindu undivided family and five of Daulat Ram were not decided. Five further appeals were taken to the Appellate Income-tax Tribunal by the firm and one by the Hindu undivided family which were decided on 29th October 1951 and the order is attached to the petition as annexure B. The parties are not agreed as to what is the effect of this order. The petitioners rely on the following passage from the order: "The retention of the inclusion in the hands of a partner of a share of the income assessed in the firms file, which assessment has been cancelled, cannot be supported." The respondents submit:

"The Tribunal did not decide the question raised before it as to what would be the position if the incom