Judgment :- N.K. JAIN, J. These petitions coming on for hearing on 9th December, 1998, and upon perusing the petitions and the affidavits filed in support thereof, the order of the High Court, dt. 16th February, 1990, and made herein and the records relevant to the prayer aforesaid comprised in the return of the respondent to the writ made by the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Philip George, advocate, for the petitioner in all the petitions and of Mr. S. Sundaresan, junior standing counsel for income-tax on behalf of the respondent in all the petitions and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following order. These two writ petitions involve a common question of fact and law and can be disposed of by one common order. For the convenience the facts of the case in Writ Petn. No. 1815 of 1990 is taken up for consideration. 2. The petitioner is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act. The company has to file its returns for the asst. yr. 1981-82 due on 31st July, 1981 and for the asst. yr. 1983-84 due on 31st July, 1983, respectively. It is stated that as the company had received the audit report for the asst. yr. 1981-82 only on 4th November, 1981, filed return on 23rd December, 1981, and for the asst. yr. 1983-84 received the audit report only on 16th February, 1984, filed return on 10th April, 1984. The assessing authority imposed interest as well as penalty. So far as the penalty is concerned, the same has been set aside. The only grievance of the petitioner is that his application under s. 273A of the IT Act, 1961, has been disallowed without following the procedure. Hence these writ petitions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on, (1) Dr. Paramjit Singh Grewal vs. CIT & Anr. (1980 18 CTR (P&H) 98 : 1980 (125) CTR 549 (P&H) : TC 49R.988 wherein it is held that once the conditions of s. 273A are satisfied, the CIT should not travel beyond it and take extraneous matters to reject it(2) Kalindi Investment (P) Ltd. vs. CIT wherein it has been observed that sufficient cause for delay in filing return is not necessary to consider the application. (3) B.R. Sound N. Music vs. O. P. Bhardwaj & Anr. (3) B.R. Sound N. Music vs. O. P. Bhardwaj & Anr. wherein s. 273A is applicable where there is a delay in filing a routine return or there is a default in payment of advance tax. (4) Barnwal Abhushan Kendra vs. CIT & Anr. 1990 (82) CTR(All) 178 : 1990 181 ITR(All) 269 : TC 49R.1068, wherein the order of CIT was set aside as he had not taken into consideration the relevant provisions of s. 273A while rejecting the application. (5) Jaswant Rai & Anr. vs. CBDT & Ors. wherein the order of the Board was quashed holding that it does not appear that the Board has duly applied its mind or made an order revealing its mind by making a speaking order. The counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the above argument submits that the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has not filed voluntary returns and only after due notice he has filed the return. Further he has not furnished full and true disclosures and not paid the advance tax or not made any arrangement for payment of advance tax. He has also stated that the order has been passed after applying due mind and discretion has been exercised. He has also relied on Naresh Kumar vs. Government of India & Ors. 1997 141 CTR (P&H) 507 and Smt. Harbans Kaur vs. CWT and submits that the discretion so exercised cannot be interfered in these writ petitions. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record and the case law cited at the bar. 6. So far as the legal position is concerned, it is not in dispute. The CIT can exercise discretion to reduce or waive the penalty or interest as the case may be and the conditions of s. 273A are to be satisfied. But, while exercising this power, he must exercise this power in such a manner which is just, fair and not in arbitrariness or its fancy. 7. In the instant case while considering the application the CIT observed that late filing of return due to non-receipt of audit report is not an adequate reason, the assessee cannot rely on his own inaction as justification for the delay nor justification for non-payment of advance tax due to the earlier year's losses. 7. In the instant case while considering the application the CIT observed that late filing of return due to non-receipt of audit report is not an adequate reason, the assessee cannot rely on his own inaction as justification for the delay nor justification for non-payment of advance tax due to the earlier year's losses. It was also observed that the reasons for cancelling the penalty are not the same as per levy of interest. Therefore, the exercise of his discretion by not waiving interest cannot be said that it is in violation of s. 273A. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or error in the order passed that the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or in violation of the procedure and, therefore, no interference is called for. So far as the point that the voluntary return has been filed after due notice, which is disputed by the counsel for the petitioner, this Court cannot go into it as being a question of fact, which needs investigation nor the petitioner has agitated himself in the writ petition. As already stated, I find no ground to interfere in the discretion exercised by the CIT in not waiving interest of Rs. 1, 734 and Rs. 6, 768, respectively. This writ petition and the other writ petition are, therefore, dismissed. WMP Nos. 2751 and 2752 of 1990 are closed. No costs.