Judgment :- Challenge is on Ext.P6 order passed by the Commissioner. It is an order passed in an application for waiver of interest under Section 220 (2A) of the Income Tax Act. It is now settled law that for considering an application for waiver, the Commissioner gets jurisdiction only if all the three conditions are satisfied [See judgment in G.T.N. Textiles Limited v. deputy commissioner of Income tax and another (217 ITR 653)]. It is seen from Ext.P6 as well as the detailed statement filed on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was not cooperating with the department in the matter of recovery. Untenable contentions had been taken when steps for recovery was taken. The department has also a stand that the recovery officers were even misled. Though there is yet another contention in the statement that the payment of the amount did not cause undue hardship to the petitioner, that is not reflected in Ext.P6. Therefore, it is not necessary to refer to that contention. Since the third condition regarding cooperation is not satisfied, the first respondent does not have jurisdiction to entertain the matter on merits. Since the Commissioner has formed the opinion and entered the satisfaction as above, it cannot be said that the order is passed on no material or that the order is unreasonable. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.