DIXIT, C. J. : This order will also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 390, 391, 392, 393 and 394 all of 1962.

2. By these six petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, Rustomji Jail of Mhow, challenges the validity of notices under S. 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), served on him in respect of escaped income for the years ending on 31st March 1941, 31st March 1942, 31st March 1943, 31st March 1944, 31st March 1945, and 31st March 1946. He prays for the issue of writs for quashing these notices and for a writ of mandamus restraining the opponent in each case from taking any steps or proceedings In pursuance of the notices.

3. The relevant facts are these. The petitioner is a resident of Mhow, which was formerly a part of the quondam Holkar State. In or about 1934 he began Interesting himself in business activities in the then British India and acquired a textile mill, known as the new Premier Mills, Bombay, He also purchased in 1939 a Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory at Khamgaon. For the assessment years 1940-41, 1941-42, 1943-44 and 1946-47, the petitioner was assessed to income-tax at Khamgaon in the former Central Provinces and Berar as a nonresident. For the assessment years 1942-43, 1944-45, 1945-46 he was assessed to tax as a non-resident by the Income-tax Officer, Special Income-tax-cum-C.P.T. Circle, Nagpur, in the old C. P. and Berar. For the assessment years 1944-45 and 1945-46 he was also assessed at Mhow as 'a resident and ordinarily resident' in respect of income from properties situated in Mhow. The orders of assessment for the assessment years in question were made in 1942, 1944, 1945, 1946 and 1947 on various dates. On 23rd March 1962, the Income-tax Officer concerned served on the petitioner six notices under S. 34 of the Act in respect of escaped income for the aforesaid years. The notice for the assessment year 1940-41 was in the following terms :

"Whereas I have reason to believe that your income assessable to income-tax for the assessment year 1940-41 has

(a) escaped assessment,

(b) been under-assessed,

income

I, therefore, propose to reassess the said allowance that has -

(a) escaped assessment.

(b) been under-assessed,

I hereby require you to deliver to me within 35 days of the receipt of this notice, a return in the attached form of your total income and total world income assessable for the said assessment year 1940-41.

This notice is being issued after obtaining the necessary satisfaction of the Central Board of Revenue, New Delhi."

The notices for the subsequent assessment years were also in similar terms. After the receipt of these notices, the petitioner addressed letters to the Income-tax Officer stating that he had no jurisdiction to issue the notices after 31st March 1956, after the limit of time fixed by Sub-S. (1A) of S. 34 of the Act and that the notices were, therefore, illegal. The Income-tax Officer, however, issued fresh notices to the petitioner under S. 22(4) of the Act and again asked him to comply with the notices issued under S. 34.

4. The petitioner contends that as he had submitted the returns of his income in the taxable territory and fully and truly disclosed all material facts necessary for his assessments for the years in question, no notice under S. 34(1)(a) of the Act could be issued to him; that the notices issued to him purported to be in the exercise of powers under S. 34(1)(b) and were manifestly out of time; and that even assuming that the notices were issued under S. 34(1)(a), they were still out of time and invalid inasmuch as S. 34(1A) of the Act was an overriding provision under which no notice under S. 34 could be issued against the petitioner after 31st March 1956.

5. In the returns filed on behalf of the Income-tax Officer concerned in each case, it has been averred that the notices were plainly under S. 34(1)(a) as they were issued after obtaining the necessary satisfaction of the C