JUDGMENT : R.C. Mankad, J. The petitioner is an individual whose main source of income is partnership share from Messrs. Munsilal Shankarlal. There was delay in the filing of his returns of income for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77, 1981-82 and 1985-86. The Income-tax Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(a) and section 273 and interest under section 139(8) and section 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act" for short), for the assessment years 1974-75 to 1976-77. He levied interest under section 139(8) and section 217 of the Act for the assessment year 1981-82. So far as the assessment year 1985-86 was concerned, he levied interest under section 139(8) and section 217 of the Act. There is nothing on record to indicate whether any penalty was levied on the petitioner under section 217(1)(a) and section 273 of the Act for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1985-86. The petitioner made a common application under section 273A of the Act for waiver of penalty and interest levied for the aforesaid assessment years to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara ("Commissioner" for short). The Commissioner was of the view that relief under section 273A could be given only in respect of one assessment year. He, therefore, by his order dated December 19, 1989, exhibit B(2), considered the petitioner's application for the assessment year 1974-75, which was the first year of default and since the requisite conditions were satisfied, he fully waived penalty and interest levied for the said assessment year as aforesaid. The petitioner's contention is that the Commissioner had power to waive penalty and interest in respect of more than one assessment year and, therefore, he was not right in granting relief to him only in respect of the assessment year 1974-75. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition seeking appropriate directions against the Commissioner who is the respondent herein. It may be mentioned here that originally this petition was both on behalf of the present petitioner as well as the Income-tax Bar Association. The Income-tax Bar Association had filed the petition as a public interest litigation in the interest of all the assessees in the State. Later on, however, the Income-tax Bar Association was deleted as a party and the petition is confined to the present petitioner for the relief as stated above. 2. The Income-tax Bar Association had filed the petition as a public interest litigation in the interest of all the assessees in the State. Later on, however, the Income-tax Bar Association was deleted as a party and the petition is confined to the present petitioner for the relief as stated above. 2. A question identical to the one which is raised in this petition was raised in Special Civil Application No. 3583 of 1989 (Cheldas Khushaldas Patel v. CIT, 1992 (196) ITR 200 (Guj)) and companion matters, which we have disposed of by our judgment delivered today. We have held in our said judgment as follows (at page 207) : "The Commissioner has been empowered to reduce or waive the amount of penalty imposed or imposable on a person under section 271(1)(i) for failure, without reasonable cause, to furnish the return of total income which he was required to furnish under sub-section (1) of section 139 or to reduce or waive the amount of interest paid or payable under sub-section (8) of section 139 or section 215 or section 217 or the penalty imposed or imposable under section 273. So far as reduction or waiver of amount of penalty imposed or imposable under section 271(1)(i) is concerned, a person seeking reduction or waiver of penalty has to satisfy the Commissioner that he has, prior to issue of notice to him under sub-section (2) of section 139, voluntarily and in good faith made a full and true disclosure of his income. So far as reduction or waiver of interest payable under section, 139(8) or section 215 or section 217 or penalty imposed or imposable under section 273 is concerned, the person seeking reduction or waiver of penalty or interest has to satisfy the Commissioner that he has, prior to issue of notice to him under sub-section (2) of section 139, or where no such notice has been issued and the period for the issue of such notice has expired, and prior to issue of notice to him under section 148, voluntarily and in good faith made a full and true disclosure of his income and has paid tax on the income so disclosed. Sub-section (3) lays down that, where an order has been made under sub-section (1) in favour of any person, whether such order relates to one or more assessment years, he shall not be entitled to any relief under this section in relation to any other assessment year at any time after the making of such order. This sub-section clearly indicates that the order made under sub-section (1) may relate to one or more assessment years. It would thus appear that, under section 273A(1), the Commissioner may either suo motu or otherwise waive penalty and/or interest in respect of one or more years. It is open to an assessee to move the Commissioner for waiver of penalty and interest for one or more years. The Commissioner is empowered to take up for consideration the question of waiver of penalty and/or interest for one or more assessment years and, by one common order, waive penalty and/or interest for one or more assessment years. However, once an order waiving penalty and interest in respect of one or more assessment years is made in respect of an assessee, no order granting such relief for any other assessment year can be made in favour of the same assessee." 3. In view of the said decision, it must be held that the respondent-Commissioner was not right in taking the view to the effect that the power to give relief under section 273A could be exercised only in respect of one year. This petition must, therefore, succeed. 4. In the result, we allow this petition and direct the respondent-Commissioner to decide the application of the petitioner for waiver of interest and/or penalty in respect of the remaining assessment years, namely, 1975-76, 1976-77, 1981-82 and 1985-86, referred to above, afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid observations and the decision of this court in Special Civil Application No. 3583 of 1989 and companion matters. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.