JUDGMENT Doabia, J. 1. Shri P.N. Gupta, advocate, for the petitioner. Shri R.D. Jain, advocate for the respondent. Heard. 2. The short point which arises for determination in this case is whether order, annexure P-4, recorded under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, passes the test of a speaking order as to whether this has been passed in conformity with Section 273 of the Act. The brief facts are as under : Different orders of assessments were passed by different Income-tax Officers at different times with regard to different assessment years. As there was failure to file the return in time penalty was imposed and interest was levied. Against the imposition of the penalty and levy of interest one single application was filed under Section 273A with regard to several assessment years. The Commissioner of Income-tax who was competent to deal with the matter waived the payment of penalty and interest with regard to one assessment year but with regard to other assessment years, the prayer was declined. One such order is annexure P-4. For facility of reference the complete order is reproduced below ; "ANNEXURE P-4 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BHOPAL Name and address of the assessee : Shivnarain Jamunalal and Co., Gwalior. Assessment year(s) : 1980-81 and 1981-82 Case number : NVD/IT/10/92-93 Date of order : 10-3-1993. Order under Section 273A of Income-tax Act, Wealth-tax Act, 1961/1957 The above-named assessee has made a petition(s) under Section 273A/ 1(a) of I.T./W.T. Act(s)/1961/1957 on 15-24993 praying for waiver/reduction of penalties/interests) levied/charged under Sections 271(1)(a), 273, 139(8), 215/217 for the above assessment years. The conditions laid down under Section 273A/1(a) of IT/WT Act(s) have been/have not been fulfilled in the above case. The penalties/ interest(s)/imposed/charged under section ...... of IT/WT Act(s) 1961/1957 is hereby waived/reduced. The petition is therefore rejected/accepted. Assessment year 1980-81 and 1981-82 petition is rejected : (Sd.) (K.D. Gupta), Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal." Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when only one application was submitted it was incumbent upon the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal, to pass the same and similar order with regard to all matters which were covered by a single application. 3. This argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is sought to be countered by learned counsel for the Revenue by placing reliance on Section 273A(3) of the Act. 3. This argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is sought to be countered by learned counsel for the Revenue by placing reliance on Section 273A(3) of the Act. According to him, the relief regarding waiver of penalty and interest can be granted only once. 4. I have gone through the contentions of learned counsel for the parties. The order, annexure P-4, is liable to be set aside on the short ground that this is not a speaking order. This order merely scores out the alternatives given on a printed form. As such, the order, annexure P-4, cannot be said to be a speaking or reasoned order. It has necessarily to be set aside on this short ground above. Apart from this, reference be made to a decision given by the Karnataka High Court reported as : CIT v. Mansaram Sukhdev Gunj [1993] 201 ITR 1 (Kar). It was said (page 2) : "The Commissioner held that the petitioner had satisfied the conditions for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 and waived the same to an extent of 50 per cent. In respect of the other years, the Commissioner took the view, that as only one disclosure can be made for the purpose of Section 273A, the assessee having elected the date as October 21, 1983, on which date the returns for two years had been filed, it is not permissible to consider the application filed by the petitioner for waiver or reduction of the interest for those years. Obviously, this view has been taken by the Commissioner in view of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 273A of the Act. The said provision does not bar the making of an application in respect of different assessment years but the claim can be made only once and that is clear from the language of Section 273A itself, viz., that when an order is made under Sub-section (1) of Section 273A of the Act, whether it relates to one or more assessment years, the assessee will not be entitled to any relief under the other provisions of the Act for any of the assessment years. But in the present case, there was no order made by the Commissioner prior to the date in question. Therefore, the Commissioner should have considered the claim made by the petitioner for the other assessment years as well. But in the present case, there was no order made by the Commissioner prior to the date in question. Therefore, the Commissioner should have considered the claim made by the petitioner for the other assessment years as well. This position has been explained to the same effect in Ram Sarandas Har Swaroop Mal v. CIT [1990] 186 ITR 503 (All), in an identical situation. In that decision, it was held that, since the assessee had filed returns for four years on different dates, the power under Section 273A(1) was available not only for one year but also for all the four years and the view taken by the Commissioner to the contrary was not correct." The above view does support the assessee. But without expressing any final opinion with regard to this matter, this matter is remanded to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal, to pass a speaking order. The question as to whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of waiver when one single application is filed with regard to several years be examined. The effect of amendment made by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1991 be also taken note of. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue has stated that the assessee has not deposited the tax. It is seen that no interim order was passed by this court. The Revenue would be at liberty to recover the tax which is primarily due from the petitioner-assessee. In case it is a condition precedent to deposit the tax under Section 273 of the Act then the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal, would be at liberty to take such decision as may be permissible under the law. The Commissioner would pass a speaking order within a period of six months. The period of six months would begin from the date a copy of this order is made available to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal.