JUDGMENT K. S. Rathore J. None appeared on behalf of respondents despite service. main grievance of petitioner is that waiver application filed by petitioner under sections 215, 217, 139(8), 271(1)(a) and 273 of Income- tax Act, 1961, for assessment years 1985-86 to 1988-89, has wrongly been rejected. assessee-petitioner filed petition on December 6, 1991, against penalties levied, before Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur and vide order dated March 31, 1993, after hearing on petition filed by petitioner has observed as under: disclosure by assessee is only with view to explaining investment in house property and its fullness cannot be commented on in view of lack of enquiries and above facts clearly show that disclosure was not true inasmuch as real source of funds has not been disclosed. Since these conditions are essential for purposes of section 273A, petition of assessee for assessment years 1985-86 to 1988-89 is rejected. petitioner challenged order passed by Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, dated March 31, 1993, on ground that Commissioner has not properly appreciated provisions of Income-tax Act and referred to section 273A which empowers to reduce or waive penalties which reads as under: Commissioner while exercising power under section 273A may reduce or waive amount of penalty imposed or imposable on person under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 271 or if he is satisfied that such person in case referred in clause (ii), has, prior to detection by Assessing Officer of concealment of particulars of income or inaccuracy of particulars furnished in respect of such income, voluntarily and in good faith, made full and true disclosure of such particulars and also has co-operated in any enquiry relating to assessment of his income and has either paid or made satisfactory arrangements for payment of any tax or interest payable in consequence of order passed under this Act in respect of relevant assessment year. It is further submitted that as petitioner has paid all dues and thus he is bona fide person to apply under section 273A. In Explanation to section 273A it is provided that For purposes of this sub-section, person shall be deemed to have made full and true disclosure of his income or of particulars relating thereto in any case where excess of income assessed over income returned is of such nature as not to attract provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on judgment rendered by this court in case of Shiv Narain Dhabhai v. CWT [1980] 121 ITR 224 wherein this court has held as under (headnote): Commissioner of Wealth-tax was required to record finding whether assessee had voluntarily and in good faith made full and true disclosure of his net wealth. No facts or figures were given by Commissioner of Wealth-tax in support of his finding that disclosure of net wealth by assessee was neither voluntary nor full and true. finding of Commissioner of Wealth-tax was very cryptic and miserably brief and, since it was open to scrutiny by court, speaking order giving reasons in support of conclusion arrived at should have been passed. Further, assessee was not given full opportunity to represent his case and order also suffered from misstatement of facts. Therefore, order of Commissioner of Wealth-tax cannot be sustained in law. Having considered ratio decided by this court in case of Shiv Narain Dhabhai [1980] 121 ITR 224 and in view of provisions of section 273A and after careful perusal of order impugned dated March 31, 1993, passed by Commissioner, it is not in doubt that without giving reason, Commissioner of Income-tax has rejected petition of waiver filed by petitioner under section 273A of Income-tax Act. And since no speaking order is passed by Income-tax Commissioner, I deem it proper to remit matter back to Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, for fresh adjudication after giving opportunity of being heard to petitioner and arrive at conclusion as to how petitioner failed to disclose income. Consequently, order dated March 31, 1993, is hereby quashed and set aside. writ petition stands allowed. *** RAM NIWAS MEENA v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX