V. BHARGAVA, J.:- This petition under Art.226 of the Constitution has been filed by the firm Gangadhar Baijnath and its three partners, Rameshwar Prasad Bagla, Harishankar Bagla and Satyanarain Bagla. The petition relates to proceedings being taken against the firm under the provisions of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act.

2. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioners that one Sri V.P. Gupta was appointed as the Authorised Official by the Income-tax Investigation Commission to discharge the functions of such officer under the said Act No.XXX of 1947, and on 29-6-1950 the petitioners received a notice from Sri V.P. Gupta, Authorised Official, to furnish certain information appearing in the petitioners books of accounts, which were specified in that notice.

Thereafter the Authorised Official carried on his investigation for more than a year and a half, during which time he sent a number of requisitions to the petitioners calling for account books, statements and other information. While this investigation was still going on, the petitioners were informed by a letter of the Authorised Official, dated 22-10-1951 that the matter was likely to be heard by the Income-tax Investigation Commission sometime early in December, 1951.

Later the definite date of hearing was communicated to the petitioners as 18-12-1951, On 11-12-1951 the petitioners received a copy of the report of the Authorised Official, which had been submitted by him to the Income-tax Investigation Commission. The petitioners appeared through a counsel before the Commission on 18-12-1951 at New Delhi, when their request for adjournment had been refused.

The case was heard for several days and the proceedings were protracted. Since considerable time was being taken in the case, the petitioners thought that it would be advisable to conclude the proceedings by requesting the Commission to arrive at a settlement and fix the quantum of evaded income at Rs.16 lacs. This offer was not accepted by the Commission and, on the other hand, a demand was made that the petitioners should disclose the details of the income covered by their proposal for settlement.

This disclosure was to be made by 17-3-1952. Later, the time granted was curtailed to 10-3-1952. The next hearing of the case commenced, however, on 17-3-1952 and, during this hearing, one of the partners, Harishanker Bagla, who has filed the affidavit in support of this petition, was examined in connection with the detailed disclosure referred to above. The next hearing took place on 7-4-1952 at Kanpur.

Further hearings continued in May 1952 and ultimately the Investigation Commission submitted its report to the Government, this report being dated 23-5-1952. On the basis of this report, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Revenue) Division) issued an order dated 7-6-1952 under S.8(2) of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, No.XXX of 1947, directing reassessment of the petitioners firm and its partners on the escaped income the figures of which have been detailed in that order.

It was also directed that penalty proceedings under S.28 of the Income-tax Act, and S.16 of the Excess Profits Tax Act be taken against the petitioners. Thereafter Sri Satnam Singh Hitkari Income-tax Officer, District II(i), Kanpur, issued notices dated 21-7-1952 to the petitioners under S.34 of the Income-tax Act. These notices were received by the petitioners on 4-8-1952. Similar notices were also issued under S.15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act.

These notices under S.34 of the Income-tax Act related to the assessment years ending on 31-3-1944, 31-3-1945, 31-3-1946, 31-3-1947 and 31-3-1948. The notices under the Excess Profits Tax Act related to the five chargeable accounting periods, the first one of which began on 30-9-1941 and the last one of which ended on 31-3-1946. After the service of those notices, the, petitioners moved this petition in this Court on 25-8-1952 and an ad interim order was