JUDGMENT 1. - None appeared on behalf of the respondents despite service. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the waiver application filed by the petitioner under sections 215, 217, 139(8), 271(1)(a) and 273 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1988-89, has wrongly been rejected. 3. The assessee-petitioner filed a petition on December 6, 1991, against the penalties levied, before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur and vide order dated March 31, 1993, after hearing on the petition filed by the petitioner has observed as under : " disclosure by the assessee is only with a view to explaining investment in house property and its fullness cannot be commented on in view of the lack of enquiries and the above facts clearly show that the disclosure was not true inasmuch as the real source of funds has not been disclosed. Since these conditions are essential for the purposes of section 273A, the petition of the assessee for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1988-89 is rejected." 4. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, dated March 31, 1993, on the ground that the Commissioner has not properly appreciated the provisions of the Income-tax Act and referred to section 273A which empowers to reduce or waive penalties which reads as under : " The Commissioner while exercising power under section 273A may reduce or waive the amount of penalty imposed or imposable on a person under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 271 or if he is satisfied that such person in the case referred in clause (ii), has, prior to the detection by the Assessing Officer of the concealment of particulars of income or the inaccuracy of particulars furnished in respect of such income, voluntarily and in good faith, made full and true disclosure of such particulars and also has co-operated in any enquiry relating to the assessment of his income and has either paid or made satisfactory arrangements for the payment of any tax or interest payable in consequence of an order passed under this Act in respect of the relevant assessment year." 5. It is further submitted that as the petitioner has paid all dues and thus he is a bona fide person to apply under section 273A. 6. It is further submitted that as the petitioner has paid all dues and thus he is a bona fide person to apply under section 273A. 6. In the Explanation to section 273A it is provided that- " For the purposes of this sub-section, a person shall be deemed to have made full and true disclosure of his income or of the particulars relating thereto in any case where the excess of income assessed over the income returned is of such a nature as not to attract the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271." 7. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this court in the case of Shiv Narain Dhabhai v. CWT (1980) 121 ITR 224 wherein this court has held as under (headnote) : " The Commissioner of Wealth-tax was required to record a finding whether the assessee had voluntarily and in good faith made full and true disclosure of his net wealth. No facts or figures were given by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax in support of his finding that the dis closure of net wealth by the assessee was neither voluntary nor full and true. The finding of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax was very cryptic and miserably brief and, since it was open to scrutiny by court, a speaking order giving reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at should have been passed. Further, the assessee was not given full opportunity to represent his case and the order also suffered from misstatement of facts. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax cannot be sustained in law." 8. Having considered the ratio decided by this court in the case of Shiv Narain Dhabhai (1980) 121 ITR 224 and in view of the provisions of section 273A and after careful perusal of the order impugned dated March 31, 1993, passed by the Commissioner, it is not in doubt that without giving reason, the Commissioner of Income-tax has rejected the petition of waiver filed by the petitioner under section 273A of the Income-tax Act. And since no speaking order is passed by the Income-tax Commissioner, I deem it proper to remit the matter back to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, for fresh adjudication after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and arrive at the conclusion as to how the petitioner failed to disclose the income. 9. And since no speaking order is passed by the Income-tax Commissioner, I deem it proper to remit the matter back to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, for fresh adjudication after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and arrive at the conclusion as to how the petitioner failed to disclose the income. 9. Consequently, the order dated March 31, 1993, is hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. *******