Judgment :- R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner made under section 273A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, rejecting the petitioner's prayer for waiver of interest levied under sections 139 and 217 of the Act for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1988-89, both years inclusive. The reasons given by the Commissioner in his own words are, "During the course of scrutiny of assessment for the assessment year 1990-91, the Assessing Officer found that there were credits to the extent of Rs. 1, 89, 000 and when the assessee was asked to explain the nature and source of these deposits, the assessee has filed revised returns, for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 and for the first time for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1987-88. Thus, it can be seen that these returns were not filed voluntarily, but only after the Assessing Officer started investigation of the case. As the disclosure made by the assessee was not voluntary, the interest cannot be waived under section 273A." The Commissioner has given further details in the counter-affidavit filed to the writ petition regarding the extent of delay. The return for the year 1985-86, which was due on July 31, 1985, was filed on March 31, 1992, after a delay of 80 months; for 1986-87 though due on July 31, 1986, was filed on March 31, 1992, after a delay of 68 months; for 1987-88 though due on July 31, 1987, was filed on March 31, 1992, after a delay of 56 months; for 1988-89 though due on July 31, 1988, was filed on February 28, 1989, after a delay of seven months. The assessments for all these years were completed on May 7, 1995, when the interest was levied. The petitioner filed his return of income for the assessment year 1990-91 on November 12, 1990, admitting an income of Rs. 23, 610 and agricultural income of Rs. 25, 000. The examination of the assessee's books of account revealed discrepancies between the account books and bank statements and introduction of a sum of Rs. 1, 89, 000 as cash credit in the accounts. A letter was issued to the assessee on February 5, 1992, calling upon him to explain these discrepancies. 23, 610 and agricultural income of Rs. 25, 000. The examination of the assessee's books of account revealed discrepancies between the account books and bank statements and introduction of a sum of Rs. 1, 89, 000 as cash credit in the accounts. A letter was issued to the assessee on February 5, 1992, calling upon him to explain these discrepancies. It is only then that the assessee filed the returns for the years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 and also filed a revised return for the year 1990-91. He filed a further revised return for 1990-91 on March 19, 1993. Revised returns for 1988-89 and 1989-90 were also filed on March 31, 1992The reason for filing those returns was obviously to avoid the penal consequence which would flow from the unexplained cash credit for 1990-91 being treated as escaped income, and after the issue of letter dated February 5, 1992, to the petitioner, the returns filed were clearly not returns filed in good faith and were not voluntary before any enquiry had been initiated with regard to the untaxed income of the assessee. The Commissioner's jurisdiction to waive interest besides being discretionary is required to be exercised only when the return has been filed making a full and complete disclosure, the return being filed voluntarily and in good faith, and further such return being filed before the issuance of the notice under section 139(2) of the Act. The disclosure made in this case in the returns for the earlier years, and the submission of the revised return for one of those years cannot be regarded as entirely voluntary, as it is obvious that such returns would not have been filed at all had the Income-tax Officer not called upon the petitioner to explain the discrepancy in his account books for the year 1990-91 and the unexplained cash credit of Rs. 1, 89, 000 in that year. It was to the advantage of the petitioner to show the portions of that amount as income for the earlier years, for which purpose, returns were filed long after the period within which such returns should have been filed. The power to waive interest vested in the Commissioner is required to be exercised judiciously and not mechanically. It was to the advantage of the petitioner to show the portions of that amount as income for the earlier years, for which purpose, returns were filed long after the period within which such returns should have been filed. The power to waive interest vested in the Commissioner is required to be exercised judiciously and not mechanically. It is meant to aid the honest taxpayer who has by inadvertence or other excusable lapse made himself liable for the interest by delaying the filing of the return. It is not meant to aid the person who has failed to file a return knowing fully well that the return should have been filed and tax paid and withheld the tax for years together and, thereafter, pays the same after inquiries are initiated by the taxing authorities which would certainly expose him to penal consequences for having shown unexplained cash credits in his books. The payment of tax after filing such belated returns by itself does not confer a right to immunity from interest. Section 273A of the Act is not a ready-made shelter for everyone who, irrespective of the circumstances, seeks to avoid the payment of interest. An assessee who, by his own conduct, has demonstrated that the return filed by him belatedly is not one which can having regard to the circumstances, be regarded as voluntary, cannot as a matter of right claim the benefit of section 273A of the Act to have the interest waivedLearned counsel for the assessee, however, sought to derive support for his submission that the interest amount should have been waived, from the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Kakarla Krishnamurthy v. CIT. Having perused that judgment, I am unable with great respect, to agree with the view that the initiation of an enquiry subsequent to the original assessment order can never be regarded as rendering the revised return involuntary. Moreover, in this case, it is not merely the submission of a revised return, but the submission of grossly belated returns for the first time after it was evident by reason of the enquiry initiated that the petitioner would become liable for penal consequences by having a large un-explained cash credit in his return for 1990-91 being regarded as income which had escaped assessment. The writ petition, therefore, fails and it is dismissed.