Pathak, C.J. (Acting).:- These applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, North Eastern Region, Shillong under section 18(2 A) of the Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 referred to as 'the Act'. 2. The assessee in the present cases submitted returns under Wealth-Tax Act for the Assessment years 1969-70 to 1971-72 voluntarily before the Wealth-Tax Officer, 'B' Ward Gauhati. The returns were however submitted beyond the prescribed time. The Wealth-Tax Officer issued notice under section 18(2) of the Wealth-Tax Act directing the petitioner to show cause as to why an order imposing penalty for late submission of return should not be made under section 18(1) (a) of the Act. 3. On receipt of the notice the assessee moved petitions before the Commissioner of Wealth-Tax under section 18 (2 A) for waiver of penalty imposable under section 18(1) (a) on the ground that the petitioner voluntarily and in good faith made full disclosure of his net wealth without any notice under section 14(2) of the Act and that it was a fit case for waiver of the penalty. 4. The Commissioner of Wealth-Tax found that the assessee submitted the returns voluntarily and made disclosure in good faith. It was further found that the assessee extended all co-operation in enquiry regarding assessments and in completion of assessment. On the basis of the aforesaid findings the Commi­ssioner of Wealth -Tax came to a conclusion that the assessee was entitled to relief under section 18(2 A) of the Wealth-Tax Act. The Commissioner of Wealth-Tax accordingly reduced the penalty to 25 per cent of the minimum imposable under the Act. 5. By the present petitions the assessee has challenged the said order of the Commissioner of Wealth-Tax on the ground that all the conditions laid down in section 18(2A) of the Act having been fulfilled, the Commissioner of Wealth-Tax acted illegally in not waiving the entire amount of penalty. It is contended that failure of the Commissioner of Wealth-Tax to waive the entire penalty amounted to arbitrary exercise of power and failure to exercise the duty cast under section 18(2A). 6. We have perused the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-Tax. The Commissioner of Wealth-Tax has given no reasons as to why he has not waived the penalty in full but simply reduced it to 25%. 7. 6. We have perused the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-Tax. The Commissioner of Wealth-Tax has given no reasons as to why he has not waived the penalty in full but simply reduced it to 25%. 7. The power of the Commissioner of Wealth-Tax to waive of reduce the penalty under section 18(2A) is a quasi-judicial power. It is now well-settled that where an authority makes an order in exercise of quasi-judicial function, it must record its reasons in support of its order. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. The mile requiring reasons to be given in support of an order, is like the principle of audi alter am partem, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process. This rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law, 8. In the instant case, the Commissioner of Wealth-Tax was fully satisfied that all the conditions precedent for exercise of power under Section 18(2A) were fulfiled. In spite of that he has not waived the penalty but simply reduced it by 25%. He has given no reason whatsoever for not waiving the penalty 30 full. 9. Under such circumstances, the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-Tax cannot be sustained. Our above reasons are also fortified by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Rule Nos. 450-453 of 1975. (Mis. Baidya Nath Sarma & Ors. vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Assam and Ors.) decided on 4.21982 and also a single Bench decision of this Court in Civil Rule Nos. 356-361 of 1975 (Sardar Karlar Singh vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax and Ors.) decided on 9.7.81. reported in (1981) 1 GIR 97. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-Tax Is set aside. The Commi­ssioner of Wealth-Tax Is directed to pass fresh orders in accor­dance with law in the light of the observations made above. 10. In the result the petitions are allowed and the Rules are made absolute. But we pass no order as to costs.