1. ' By the impugned order of December 12, 1986 (Annexures "5" and "6" to the writ Petition), relating to Income-tax and Wealth Tax Act for the connective assessment years 1983-84 to 1985-86, the Commissioner in view of section 273-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and section 18-B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, analogous to section 273-A of the Income Tax Act, held that the return for the assessm ent years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86 were furnished before the notices under sections 139(2) and 148 of the Income Tax Act and analogous notices under the Wealth Tax Act, were issued; that the assessm ents were completed for the said assessment years both under the Income Tax Act and the Wealth Tax Act on the basis of the returns voluntarily filed by the assessee and that the assessee fully cooperated with the Departmental authorities in the assessment proceedings.
2. Having held so, the Commissioner reduced the penalty and interest to the extent of 50 per cent both under the Income Tax Act and the Wealth Tax Act.
3. ' The only submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Commissioner has given no reasons to restrict the reduction of the penalty and interest to the extent of 50 per cent. It is submitted that having been satisfied with the circumstances as laid down under section 273-A of the Income Tax Act and under the analogous provisions of the Wealth Tax Act, the entire penalty and interest should have been waived. Upon a perusal of the impugned order passed both under the Income Tax Act and the Wealth Tax Act by the Commissioner, it clearly appears that he has not recorded any reasons to restrict the relief to the extent of 50 per cent.
4. ' In a similar situation, in Naresh Kumar Gupta v. CIT (1983) 144 ITR 556, this Court quashed the order of the Commissioner and directed him to re-decide the matter after giving reasons.
5. ' Following the said authority, the petition is allowed; the impugned order of the Commissioner (Annexures "5" and "6" to the writ petition) passed both under the Income-tax Act and the Wealth Tax Act is quashed and the case is remitted to the Commissioner with the direction that he will re- decide the matter afresh on the merits.