SEN, J.: These seven writ applications are taken up together as the points in­volved therein are common. It is prayed that the respondents, namely the Income Tax Officer 'A' Ward, Shillong and others should be called upon to forbear from giving effect to the impugned notices as also the impugned order dated 31-3-62 passed by the Respondent No. 1. It is also prayed that the order dated 4-5-66 passed on appeal by the Respondent No. I, should not be given effect to. We shall mainly refer to the facts of the case stat­ed in Civil Rule No. 357/65 as they are common to all the rest of the cases. The assessment years involved are 1947-48, 1948-49, 1949-50, 1950-51. 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54. 2. There is a Hindu undivided family under the name of Ganeshdass Sreeram which originally owned all the businesses of the family and carried on the same as such, till the assessment year 1946-47. Thereafter there was partial partition in the year 2003 Ramnavami corresponding to 1946, in respect of the business carri­ed on and some moveable properties own­ed by the Hindu undivided family. With respect to these divided business, a partnership was formed under the instru­ment of partnership dated 19-9-47 con­sisting of the petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 and their late father Jivan Ram Goenka. On the death of Jivan Ram Goenka on 20-2-50, a fresh deed of partnership dated 26-7-50 was executed and the petitioner No. 5, the mother of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 was taken in as a partner in place of Jivan Ram Goenka. Thereafter, another; partnership deed was executed on 18-5-54 on attainment of majority of a minor by the name of Sankarlal Goenka. The partnership firm applied for regis­tration under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter called the old Act, for the assessment year 1947-48 in the form prescribed giving all necessary particulars as required. The Income-tax Officer by his order dated 14-2-52 reject­ed the application for registration of the firm, but on appeal, his order was set aside and registration was granted to the firm by the Appellate Officer's order dated 14-5-52, in consequence whereof, the assessment for the year 1947-48 was made in the hands of the partnership firm and separate assessment was made with regard to the properties in the hands of the Hindu undivided family so far as other income of this family was concern­ed. This fact has not been denied by the Department. For all subsequent years, renewal of registration was duly granted and assessments were made in the hands of the partnership firm and taxes so assessed were duly paid. This fact has also not been, denied. 3. What happened next was that a notice dated 12-3-62 was issued to the partnership firm asking it to show cause why registration granted for the assess­ment years 1948-49 should not be can­celled. Similar notices were also issued for the other assessment years namely 1947-48 and 1949-50 to 1953-54. Accord­ing to the petitioner, it is important to note that such notices were issued 19 days before the coming into force of the new Income-tax Act of 1961. hereinafter! called the 'Act'. In such notices, no ground for cancellation was given. It was followed by a letter dated 20-3-62, issued by the Income-tax Officer men­tioning the alleged facts which led him to believe that there was no genuine firm in existence. We shall deal with' the contents of the letter at the time of discussion of the merits of the case. On receipt of this notice and the let­ter as aforesaid, an application dated 23-3-62 was filed on behalf of the firm to the Income-tax Officer stating that the senior partner of the firm Sri Rameswar Goenka would be undergoing an opera­tion in the hospital on that date and as such two months' time was prayed for in order that the grounds made by the Income-tax Officer for cancellation of registration might be explained. The Income-tax Officer however In' reply informed the firm by letter dated 26-3-62 that the prayer for extension of time cannot be granted, as a time barred question was involved and granted him as a special case time till 29-6-62. The partnership firm under such circum­stances had to submit a reply on 23-6-62, mentioning inter alia that the time allow­ed was too short and the difficulties in the matter of submission of reply was due to the illness of the senior partner and for which no other materials could be placed. In spite of it, the cancellation order was passed and against this order an appeal was preferred, but the Appel­late Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax dismissed the appeals as they were not maintainable. 4. In spite of it, the cancellation order was passed and against this order an appeal was preferred, but the Appel­late Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax dismissed the appeals as they were not maintainable. 4. Thereafter, after the lapses of about three years, notice dated 20-3-65 was issued by the Income-tax Officer under section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 1948-49 to the Hindu undivided family alleging that the Income-tax Offi­cer had reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax of the said Hindu un­divided family had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Similar notices were issued in res­pect of other assessment years as well On receipt of such notice, a letter was written as to how under section 148. such a proceeding had been started and at the same time a return was submitted by the Hindu undivided family under profast showing the same income as was Shown in the original return already filed. From para 2 of the aflidavit-in-op-position. it appears that it was admitted that for the assessment year .1947-48. two retarns were filed-one by the Hindu undivided family showing the income from the property and dividend income and the. other by the partnership firm showing the income from the business. 5. Upon these facts, the aforesaid orders of cancellation of registration and Issue of notices under section 148 of the Act have been challenged. 6 Before the matters were heard on merits. Dr. Medhi appearing for the De­partment raised a preliminary objection that the joinder of the firm and the Hindu undivided family as petitioners in all these cases is not maintainable in law. In support of his contention, he has referred us to rule 1 of the Rules govern­ing applications under Article 226 of the Constitution at page 44 of the Rules of High Court of Judicature of Assam at Gauhati. It is provided therein that sepa­rate application should be filed for each Individual, where interests are not iden­tical even if there is one common impugned order governing several cases and the facts of each- case should be separately supported by affidavits. He 'has referred us to several decisions in which it has been held that each aggrieved person must file petition for relief and joint petition although based on common interest does not lie. He 'has referred us to several decisions in which it has been held that each aggrieved person must file petition for relief and joint petition although based on common interest does not lie. In this connection, ft should not be forgotten however that an application under Article 226 Is a proceeding in a Court of civil jurisdiction and the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code may be invoked. In these particular cases, it appears that the right to relief had arisen out of the same transaction of cancella­tion of registration as also the notice under Section 148 of the Act and there­fore It should be treated as inseparably mixed up. in the sense that the Hindu un­divided family and the firm constituted out of it, are mainly concerned in the matter of harden of taxation, if the can­cellation of registration stands. Accord­ingly, it cannot be said that there has been any mlsjoinder of parties in these applications. Apart from that it may be said that since objection regarding mis-Joinder of parties was not taken at the earliest stage, it cannot be entertained at the time of hearing of these petitions. Accordingly the preliminary objection made by Dr. Medhi is overruled. 7. In the first instance, we shall deal with the question whether the cancella­tion of registration was done without giving any reasonable opportunity to the firm and whether natural justice was denied to it As to interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution on the said grounds, it is now well settled that the High Court may issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash quasi-judicial proceedings taken by the Income-tax authorities in excess of his jurisdic­tion and to quash an order which is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record or it is passed in violation of the principle of natural justice. 8. Before dealing with the question as to propriety of the. cancellation order, it is necessary to set out briefly certain facts which weighed in favour of can­cellation. The Income-tax Officer can­celled the registration when he came to know that late Jivan Ram Goenka exe­cuted two powers of attorney-one in the year 1949 and another in 1950 executed in favour of Rameswar Goenka. cancellation order, it is necessary to set out briefly certain facts which weighed in favour of can­cellation. The Income-tax Officer can­celled the registration when he came to know that late Jivan Ram Goenka exe­cuted two powers of attorney-one in the year 1949 and another in 1950 executed in favour of Rameswar Goenka. The Bank account in the name of Ganeshdass Sreeram, the Hindu undivided family with the State Bank of India, Shillong was converted into the partnership ac­count only on 22-12-51. Thirdly the share income from the firm A. V. Morello & Co., Shillong, in which the Hindu un­divided family of M/s. Ganeshdass Sree­ram was partner was not shown as the income of the partnership firm in the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Fourthly he relied on other papers and records submitted by late Jivan Ram Goenka after the partition of 1946, stat­ing that the business was the proprietary concern. He concluded that the powers of attorney and other documents were sufficient to show that the Hindu undi­vided family was not disrupted on the creation of a colourable firm. As regards the fourth matter, serious objection was taken that there was denial of natural justice and no reasonable opportunity was given to explain away other docu­ments on which the Income-tax Officer relied 9. These proceedings for cancellation were taken up by the Income Tax Offi­cer under Rule 6B of the Rules under the old Act. This provides that in the event of the Income Tax Officer being satisfied that the certificate granted under Rule 4. or under Rule 6A has been obtained without there being a genuine firm in existence he may cancel the certificate so granted. The new Act came into force on 1-4-62 and we have already said that before this date, the cancella­tion proceedings were taken up and it cannot be questioned that it is deemed to have continued after the new Act came into operation. Under rule 6B of the old Act, the firm was already assess­ed and the Income Tax Officer could reassess the firm under the old S. 34 in the status of an unregistered firm. We have already stated that a partnership deed was executed on 16-9-46 and the firm was duly registered. Under rule 6B of the old Act, the firm was already assess­ed and the Income Tax Officer could reassess the firm under the old S. 34 in the status of an unregistered firm. We have already stated that a partnership deed was executed on 16-9-46 and the firm was duly registered. Thereafter two partnership deeds were executed respectively on 20-2-50 and 18-5-54 on account of the death of Jivan Ram Goenka in order to make juxtaposi­tion of shares amongst the surviving partners and Sankarlal Goenka a minor, was made a full-fledged partner. We have already stated as to the grounds why the registration of the firm was cancelled During the cancellation proceedings, it appears that on the 12th March, 1962. the firm of M/s. Ganeshdass Sreeram was asked to show cause by 23-3-62 as to why the renewal of registration granted to the firm under section 26A of the old Act for the assessment year 1947-48 should not be cancelled. This was followed by letter dated 20-3-63 as per Annexure 'F' of the petition. Therein it was said that the first and second powers of attorney given by Jivan Ram Goenka show that these were executed for the purpose of manage­ment of properties and business. Second­ly an account in the State Bank of India was converted into a partnership account on the 26-12-51. We have already dealt with the matter of A. V. Morello & Co. The most im­portant point for consideration is whether the petitioners were given reasonable op­portunity to say anything against the contemplated cancellation based on other papers and records on which also conclu­sion was reached that the partnership deed was a mere paper transaction pur­ported to evade taxation and there never existed a genuine firm. The partnership firm showed cause in pursuance of this notice, vide Annexure 'G' that the senior partner Sri Rameswar Goenka was going to be operated on 23-3-62 and as such a request was made to grant the firm two months' time for giving necessary reply to the alleged matter under reference. This was refus­ed and the reasons given for granting time as prayed for do not appear to be based on natural justice. The Income Tax Officer replied on 23-3-62 that the prayer for extension of time was reject­ed as a time bar matter is involved. How­ever, as a special case, time for three days was allowed till 26-3-62. This was refus­ed and the reasons given for granting time as prayed for do not appear to be based on natural justice. The Income Tax Officer replied on 23-3-62 that the prayer for extension of time was reject­ed as a time bar matter is involved. How­ever, as a special case, time for three days was allowed till 26-3-62. Against this, the firm replied on 29-3-62 that the time for showing cause was too short and the matter being very old and complicat­ed for which at least a fortnight's time should have been allowed. It was clear­ly stated that the senior partner Sri Rameswar Goenka was in hospital for a major operation which was performed on 23-3-62 and he was lying in hospital. In so far as the first and second documents are concerned, explanations were given which were not accepted by the Income Tax Officer. As regards the Bank's ac­count, an explanation was given that after the creation of the firm of partnership, it was decided by the partners to continue the bank account as before. So far as the firm of M/s. A. V. Moreito was concerned, it was explained that (fee partner of the firm M/s. Ganeshdass Sree­ram was .never a partner in this firm and the share income was assessed In their hands individually. The "other documents" to which reliance was placed by the Income Tax Officer were not disclosed to the firm and hence they; could offer no explanation therefor, 10. On the above, it has been argued by Mr. Bhattacharjee appearing for the petitioners that the impugned older dated 31-3-62 cancelling the registration of the firm was passed without giving any" reasonable opportunity of being heard to the firm. As such the said impugned order passed in violation of the principle of natural justice and denial of reason able opportunity is liable to be set aside and quashed. Dr. Medhi appearing tar the respondents has first urged that R. 6B of the old Act does not in any way contemplate that the petitioners should he. heard in person, and that he further argu­ed that the question whether the rules of natural justice have been observed in particular case must itself be judged in the light of the constitution of the sta­tutory body which has to function %a ac­cordance with the rules laid down by His Legislature. heard in person, and that he further argu­ed that the question whether the rules of natural justice have been observed in particular case must itself be judged in the light of the constitution of the sta­tutory body which has to function %a ac­cordance with the rules laid down by His Legislature. As such, his contention b that Rule 6B not having contemplated such a procedure, the question of denial of natural justice does not arise at all In so far as his argument that no adjournment was prayed for would by it self gives rise to the fact that the contention of the petitioners is not at all genuine, we must say in this connection that the question of prayer for adjournment could never arise in this case, inas­much as there was a preemptory order, as stated before, that if within 29-3-62 noth­ing was done, the case would be decided ex parte. We are of the opinion that on such order being given, there could not be any scope of any prayer for adjourn-ment and the petitioners were left at the mercy of the Income Tax Officer. In such circumstances, it goes without saying that the Income Tax Officer wanted to proceed with the matter in a break­neck speed which clearly goes against the principle of natural Justice. It has been observed in the case of Naravan Chett v. Income Tax Officer AIR 1959 SC 213 that if the power under Rule 6B is exercised by the Income Tax Officer against a firm, without giving if a notice in that behalf and without affording it an opportunity to satisfy the Officer that it is a genuine firm, it may be open to the firm to question the vali­dity of the order on that ground. On reference to explanation given by firm as per .Annexure 'I' of the petition it appears that regarding the documents stated before, no opportunity was given to the firm to explain the contents there­of after they were disclosed. In our opin­ion, although we agree with Dr. Medhl that no hearing is necessary, It is incum­bent upon the Income Tax Officer to give the partnership firm a reasonable op­portunity to explain. In our opin­ion, although we agree with Dr. Medhl that no hearing is necessary, It is incum­bent upon the Income Tax Officer to give the partnership firm a reasonable op­portunity to explain. Such a course was not adopted by the Income Tax Officer and in his anxiety to reassess the entire Hindu undivided family for a larger realisation of income tax, he decided to take up the matter ex parte. In such cir­cumstances, we are of the view that since reasonable opportunity was not given, it offends against the principles of natural justice and therefore the cancellation orders in respect of the assessment years In question commencing from the assess­ment year 1948-49 should be quashed. Now the question has arisen as to which of the authorities- should be called upon to reconsider the matters after giving reasonable opportunity to the firm to explain. 11. It appears that against the orders of cancellation by the Income Tax Officer, appeals were preferred and the said ap­peals were dismissed by the order of the Assistant Appellate Income Tax Com­missioner on 4-5-64 as incompetent. Dr. Medhl has argued that since the Assistant Appellate Commissioner has equal powers with that of the Income Tax Officer to call for any document and receive other evidence, it is in fitness of things desir­able that the matter should be sent back to him for reconsideration. We are of the view that since the appeals were found infructuous on the ground that they were Incompetent, it seems that they were not at all entertained although under the appropriate law and the rules, appeals against such orders of the Income Tax Officer lay. As such, we are of consider­ed opinion that since the appeals were not considered by the appellate authority, the matter should go back to the Income Tax Officer concerned for reconsideration of the matters in terms set forth above. 12. Another question which arises for our consideration is whether the cancella­tion order in respect of the assessment year 1947-48 should be set aside. Against the order of cancellation of registration by the Income Tax Officer an appeal was taken to the Appellate Assistant Commis­sioner, who set aside the orders of the Income Tax Officer and directed grant of registration to the firm by his order dated 14-5-52. This fact has not been disputed. Dr. Against the order of cancellation of registration by the Income Tax Officer an appeal was taken to the Appellate Assistant Commis­sioner, who set aside the orders of the Income Tax Officer and directed grant of registration to the firm by his order dated 14-5-52. This fact has not been disputed. Dr. Medhi with reference to Rule 6B has argued before us that in spite of the order by the Appellate Autho­rity, it was open to cancel the registra­tion by the Income Tax Officer, as it de­pended upon his own satisfaction. This rule is not clear to show, whether he could cancel the registration which; has been granted by the Appellate Officer. In this connection, we may quote here the relevant portion of section 31 (3) (part of (b)) and (c) of the Old Act. It is provided inter alia that In case of an order cancelling registration, of a firm... or refusing to register a firm., .under section 26A. . . the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may confirm such order or cancel it and direct the Income Tax Officer to register the firm or to make a fresh assessment as the case may be. This clearly shows that by an appellate order a direction was made to the Income Tax Officer to register a firm. In such circumstances, the question of satisfaction for cancellation of an appellate order does not arise as under the ordinary principles of law an inferior authority cannot set at naught an appellate order. In such, circumstances, we are of the view that in so far as the order of cancellation regarding 1947-48 is concerned, the order of cancellation of registration must be set aside and further enquiry in respect of the assessment year 1947-48 must not be embarked upon. 13. At the next place, we are required to decide a very important question of law, namely whether a notice under Section 148 of the new Act is sustainable or not. 14. 13. At the next place, we are required to decide a very important question of law, namely whether a notice under Section 148 of the new Act is sustainable or not. 14. It is an admitted position that notices under section 148 of the Act were Issued on 20-3-65 on the allegation that the Income Tax Officer had reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax of the said Hindu undivided family had escaped assessment, within the meaning of section 147 of the Act The Karta of the HUF submitted a petition to the Income Tax Officer, Shillong requesting him to intimate the reasons for initiation of such proceedings. Although he did so, he, at the same time filed a return under protest. In the affidavit-in-opposition. it is clearly admitted by the Department that for the assessment year 1947-48 two returns were filed, one return by the HUF showing income from property and dividend income and the other by the partnership firm showing income from business. It also appears that the balance sheet of the firm was also incorporated. In so far as the other assessment years are concerned, it does not appear that such a course was not followed. The crux of the whole position therefore is whe­ther the income chargeable has escaped assessment for that particular year. 15. On the basis of these facts, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the conditions precedent for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act are non-existent in the present case and as such the impugned notice is wholly il­legal and without jurisdiction. Moreover it has been submitted that the ground alleged for the issue of the notice under section 148 of the Act not being govern­ed by clause (a) of section 147, the impu­gned notice is barred, by limitation under the provisions of clause (b) of section 147 of the Act. 16. In deciding this point, it is found that the notice under section 148 was issued long after the year of cancella­tion, namely three years and as such prima facie it appears to me that the order of cancellation was the pivot round which the whole factum of notice under section 148 moved. Section 147 runs as follows: "147. 16. In deciding this point, it is found that the notice under section 148 was issued long after the year of cancella­tion, namely three years and as such prima facie it appears to me that the order of cancellation was the pivot round which the whole factum of notice under section 148 moved. Section 147 runs as follows: "147. Income escaping assessment,- If- (a) the Income-Tax Officer has reason to believe that, by reason of the omis­sion or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return under section 139 for any assessment year to the Income-tax Officer or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assess­ment for that year, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year. or (b) notwithstanding that there has been no omission or failure as mentioned in clause (a) on the part of the assessee, the Income-tax Officer has in consequence of Information in his possession reason to be­lieve that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereinafter in Sections 148 to 153 referr­ed to as the relevant assessment year)." It has been urged on behalf of the De­partment that the case falls under Sec­tion 147 (a) inasmuch as there has been a non-disclosure of the Income by the HTJF and therefore the case fell clearly within the ambit of this clause (a). In S. 147 (a) the expression "material facts" is very Important inasmuch as the criterion for decision is whether they were not fully and truly disclosed. It is undoubtedly true that there is no duty on the part of the Income-tax Officer to hear the asses­see before the notice is issued and in such! circumstances it is in fitness of things desirable to refer to the points of law as argued from the Bar. The petitioners rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1961 SC 372 , Calcutta Discount Co. circumstances it is in fitness of things desirable to refer to the points of law as argued from the Bar. The petitioners rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1961 SC 372 , Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. V. Income-tax Officer, Companies District No. I. Their Lordships inter alia observ­ed as follows: "To confer jurisdiction under this sec­tion (section 34(1) (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 - Section 147(a) of the Act) to Issue notice in respect of assessments be­yond the period of four years, but with­in a period of eight years, from, the end of the relevant year two conditions have therefore to be satisfied. The first is that the Income-tax Officer must have reason to believe that income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax have been under-assessed. The second is that he must have also reason to believe that such 'under-assessment has occurred by reason of either (i) omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return of his income under Section 22 or (ii) omis­sion or failure on the part of an assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year. Both these conditions are condi­tions precedent to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer could have jurisdic­tion to issue a notice for the assessment or reassessment beyond the period of four years, but within the period of eight years, from the end of the year in ques­tion." This decision was made regarding the true Import of Section 34 of the old Act, the terms whereof are in all material parti­culars are incorporated in Section 147 of the Act. From this decision, it appears that the expression "material facts" used In clause (a) of Section 147 of the Act refers only to primary facts and the duty of the assessee is only to disclose the pri­mary facts and he is not required to in­dicate what factual or legal inference should be drawn from the primary facts In the aforesaid decision, it appears that the assessee had disclosed all primary facts regarding sale of shares and the Supreme Court held that action under clause (a) of Section 34 of the old Act could not be taken on the ground that the assessee had claimed it to be a mere change of investment and had not disclosed the true intention behind the sale. It Is not disputed that the expression ''reasons to believe" Is the test for issuing a notice under Section 148 and as such the whole question hinges upon the fact whether the primary facts were not disclos­ed, before the issue of notice was em­barked upon. We have already said that the returns for the previous years were submitted by the petitioners partly for the HUF and partly for the firm and therefore the question is whether the peti­tioners were guilty of non-disclosure. In so far as non-disclosure is concerned, it will appear from the affidavit-in-opposition at page 141 of Civil Rule No. 357 that the Hindu undivided family, the assessee in 1948-49 had a total income of Rs. 100247 and of which it did not disclose Rs. 75168 in its return and this amount is liable to assessment in the hands of the HUF as it escaped assessment. Similar is the case with other assessment years. It will not be out of place to mention here once again that the old partnership firm ceased to exist and new partnership documents were created on some change of devolu­tion of shares, arising out of the death of Jivan Ram Goenka and it is stated by the petitioners that subsequent to the assess­ment years in dispute these partnership firms were duly registered and that the assessment of tax was based on such re­gistration. For the purpose of this case, it is unnecessary to refer to it, but it may be said in passing that the original part­nership business remained unbroken and it was only the interest of the partners which underwent changes. We have dis­cussed this aspect of the law only to show that the argument on behalf of the De­partment that the registration of the firm on the basis of new partnership deeds, had no nexus to the original partnership, does not stand to reason. 17. Now turning to the matter whe­ther the impugned notices come within the ambit of Section 147 (a) of the Act, it has been argued on behalf of the Depart­ment that the non-existence of the firm occasioned by cancellation is the test on which it can be said that the petitioners were guilty of lapses, in not truly and ful­ly disclosing the material facts. So it seems that the order of cancellation is the originating circumstance, on which the notices were issued and as such we shall presently refer to the reasons as re­corded by the Income-tax Officer under sub-section (2) of Section 148 of the Act, which enjoins that the Income-tax Officer shall, before issuing any such notice under this section record his reasons for doing so. 18. Dr. Medhi has In support of his argument regarding escapement of assess­ment referred to us to the observation of the Supreme Court in para 15 of the judgment in Calcutta Discount case, AIR 1961 SC 372 which runs as follows: "The position therefore is that if there were in fact some reasonable grounds for thinking that there had been any non-dis­closure as regards any primary fact, which could have a material bearing on the question of 'under-assessment' that would be sufficient to give jurisdiction to the Income-tax Officer to issue the notice under Section 34. Whether these grounds were adequate or not for arriving at the conclusion that there was a non-disclosure of material facts would not be open for the court's investigation. In other words, all that is necessary to give this special jurisdiction is that the Income-tax Officer had when he assumed jurisdiction some prima facie grounds for thinking that there had been some non-disclosure of material facts." This proposition of law can never be dis­puted and it is also true that it is not for the High Court to decide whether the ground was adequate or inadequate. We Registration was the originating dream-stance to set in motion the provision of Section 147 (a) and therefore we shaft have to look into the reasons of the In­come-tax Officer as to whether there was a prima facie case for issuing notice under Section 148. 19. It goes without saying that every case must be decided on its own merits, In the instant cases it appears that then was prima facie no non-disclosure, in so far as the firm and the HUF were con­cerned before the date of cancellation of registration. We have had the advan­tage of going through the reasons record­ed by the Income-tax Officer for appro­val by the appropriate authority and in all these cases it appears that in course of investigation in respect-of another sis­ter concern of this assessee namely the HUF. We have had the advan­tage of going through the reasons record­ed by the Income-tax Officer for appro­val by the appropriate authority and in all these cases it appears that in course of investigation in respect-of another sis­ter concern of this assessee namely the HUF. it was found that the alleged par­tial partition of the HUF was not correct and in fact the HUF continued to remain as before. Accordingly the registration for the aforesaid assessment years was cancelled. Therefore his conclusion was that some income of the HUF escaped assessment. Such is the case in respect of all. the years concerned. In his notes submitted to the Commissioner of Income-tax, he has stated that the cases come within the ambit of clause (a) of Section 147 of the Act. but in none of the reasons given, any reference to omission or failure on the part of the asses-see to make a return or to disclose fully or truly of material facts necessary for its assessment for that year, has been made. The main consideration which weighed with the Income-tax Officer after the lapse of three years from the date of cancellation of registration was that In course of an investigation of another sis­ter concern, the partial partition of the HUF was found not to be correct and therefore the registration was cancelled and this was the sheet anchor for taking action for service of notice under Section 147 (a) of the Act. In our opinion, such a reason does not come within the ambit of Section 147(a) on the face of the unchallenged averment of the petitioners that disclosure of Income of the HUF and the firm was fully and. truly made. In such' circumstances the factum of cancellation of registration and the consequential fact that the firm's income is the income of the HUF, do not amount to non-disclosure by the HUF within the meaning of Section 14? (a) of the Act. 20. A large number of decisions have been referred to us from the Bar, but we need not enter into the question of their applicability in the instant cases, as It b considered that the Calcutta Discount case. AIR 1961 SC 372 is the true guide for disposal of such matters. (a) of the Act. 20. A large number of decisions have been referred to us from the Bar, but we need not enter into the question of their applicability in the instant cases, as It b considered that the Calcutta Discount case. AIR 1961 SC 372 is the true guide for disposal of such matters. Further more, we mare observe that income cannot be held to have escaped assessment with­in the meaning of Section 147(a) merely on the ipse dixit of the Income-tax Offi­cer. It is for him to establish that he had reasons to believe in the first instance that there was non-disclosure of income. Such reasons are absent in his notes and accordingly it is hardly possible to hold that the notices come within the ambit of the said clause. 21. Since we have quashed the cancel­lation orders, it need be considered whe­ther they win be considered as the prin­cipal reasons for issuing a notice under Section 147(a) of the Act In our opinion the foundation having been snapped, the matters remain at large and the notice .Under Section 148 of the Act for this reason also cannot be said to be operative, 22. The other question which requires consideration is, if the notices do not come within the ambit of Section 147(a), whether they should be deemed to be notices under clause (b). In cases where there has been no failure on the part of tile assessee to make a return of his in­come and to disclose fully and truly any material facts necessary for his assess­ment, clause (b) comes into operation. It appears from this clause that the Income-tax Officer should receive the informa­tion after the original assessment and the Information should lead him to believe that income has escaped assessment It appears to us on examination of the re­cords of the case that for all intents and purposes, the Income-tax Officer has Bought to issue a notice under Section 148 on an information which he had received In connection with a sister concern and which gave rise to the cancellation pro­ceedings. This in our opinion brings the notices Within the ambit of clause (b) and not under clause (a) of Section 147 of the Act It is very important to note that in the affidavits of the Department and the reasons for issuing notices, it has nowhere been specifically stated as to what was the extent and nature of non-disclosure within the meaning of clause (a), on the face of disclosure of the primary facts by the firm and the HUF. In such circum­stances, it appears to us that resort was taken by the Income-tax Officers under clause (a) in order to circumvent the period of limitation as enjoined in Section I49(l)(b) of the Act It requires that in cases falling under clause (b) of Section 147, at any time after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assess­ment year, proceedings for notices may be embarked upon. It is now the estab­lished principle of law that where a period of limitation is prescribed under the statute, it imposes a fetter upon the Income-tax Officer to take action beyond dates. In such circumstances, it Is open to the Income-tax Officer whe­ther resort should be had for issuing fresh notices under Section 148 in terms of clause (b) of Section 147. 23. For the reasons- given above, our conclusion is that the cancellation of registration for the assessment year 1947-48 must stand quashed and the registra­tion for this assessment year must be al­lowed to stand. In so far as the assess­ment years 1948-49. 1949-50. 1950-51 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54 are concerned, the orders of cancellation of registration pass­ed by the Income-tax Officer must stand set aside on the ground that natural jus­tice was denied and reasonable opportu­nity was not given. The matter shall go back to the Income-tax Officer for recon­sideration after giving reasonable oppor­tunity to the petitioners to explain the cir­cumstances against the contemplated can­cellation of registration. In so far as the impugned notices under Section 148 are concerned, they are hereby quashed and we direct that the Income-tax Officer must forbear from giving effect to the same. 24. In the result, the Rules are made absolute in the above terms. A consoli­dated hearing fee of Rs. 200 is allowed for all these seven cases. 25. S. K. DUTTA C. J.: I agree. Petition allowed.