Appeals from the judgment and decree dated August 13, 11, 1959 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.
M s. K. S. Rashid Son, and its partner, Rashid Ahmad, are the appellants in Civil Appeals Nos.
because all of them raise a companymon question of law about the validity of section 34 1A of the Income tax Act No.
S. Pathak, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellants in C.As.
37 40 of 1963 .
870 to 873 and 349 of 1956 respectively.
335 345/1960 have been filed by the same parties in this Court under Art.
589 of 1963 has been brought to this Court in similar circumstances by the appellant, M s. Bhawani Prasad Girdharlal.
The writ petitions Nos.
37 40 of 1963.
589/63 .
Civil Appeal No.
335 345/1960.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The appellant had challenged the validity of the numberices issued to it on the 16th August, 1955 under s. 3 4 1A of the Act.
37 to 40/1963, and petitioners in W.Ps.
C. Setalvad, Rameshwar Nath,S. N. Andley and L. Vehra, for the appellant in C.A. No.
Writ Petitions Nos.
WITH Petitions Nos.
The respondents to the writ petitions are the Income tax Officer, Central Circle IV, New Delhi, the Income tax Officer, A Ward, Meerut, the Commissioner of Income tax, P., Lucknow, and the Central Board of Revenue, New Delhi.
335 to 345 of 1960.
The appeals arise out of the four writ petitions Nos.
1956 and the order of excess profit tax levied on them.
The respondents to the appeals are the Commissioner of Income tax, U.P., Lucknow, and the Income tax Officer, Central Circle IV, Delhi.
The writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the Allahabad High Court and it is with the certificate issued by the said High Court that the present appeal has been brought to this Court.
Petition under Art.
The Judgment of the Court was, delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J. These civil appeals and writ petitions have been placed before us for hearing in a group,.
February 19, 1964.
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, K. N. Rajagopal Sastri and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents in all the appeals and petitions .
870 873 of 1956 filed by the firm and its partner in the High Court of Allahabad challenging the validity of the numberices served upon them under s. 34 1A of the Act in respect of their income for the years 1941 42 to 1946 47.
32 of the Constitution in respect of the numberices served on them on the 19th March.
In these petitions, the same point is urged by the parties and that is that the numberices are invalid, because s. 34 1A is itself ultra vires.
These writ petitions have been dismissed by the said High Court and it is with the certificate issued by it that the firm and its partner have companye to this Court in appeal.
