JUDGMENT D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—The petitioner, who is an assessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, is aggrieved by an order passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax rejecting the request of the petitioner for extending the relief under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is a provision which enables an assessee to seek for waiver of interest payable on the delayed payment of tax demanded pursuant to a notice issued under Section 156 of the Act and for defaulting in payment of tax beyond the permitted period. 2. It appears, the assessee, for the assessment years 1992-93, 1994-95 and 1995-96 had not filed his returns in time and the Income Tax authorities had occasion to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act calling upon the assessee to file returns for those years and after great persuasion and prodding, the assessee appears to have filed returns. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer had assessed the assessee and the assessee had appealed against the assessment order one appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and another appeal to the Tribunal also and it is the submission of Sri Shankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did get substantial relief in the appeals. 3. The present writ petition is limited to the question of the Commissioner not extending the relief of waiver of levy of interest due to the delayed payment of tax liability as determined for these years and for not paying the tax within the time stipulated under the demand notice issued under Section 156 of the Act. 4. In this regard, Sri Shankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had fully satisfied all the requirements to claim waiver of interest in terms of Section 220(2A) of the Act and that the Commissioner has not shown awareness to the fulfilment of essential requirements on the part of the assessee to claim benefit as provided in Section 220(2A) of the Act itself, which reads as under: D-Collection and recovery 220. When tax payable and when assessee deemed in default.- (1) Any amount, otherwise than by way of advance tax, specified as payable in a notice of demand under Section 156 shall be paid within thirty days of the service of the notice at the place and to the person mentioned in the notice: Provided that, where the Assessing Officer has any reason to believe that it will be detrimental to revenue if the full period of thirty days aforesaid is allowed, he may, with the previous approval of the joint commissioner, direct that the sum specified in the notice of demand shall be paid within such period being a period less than the period of thirty days aforesaid, as may be specified by him in the notice of demand. (2) If the amount specified in any notice of demand under Section 156 is not paid within the period limited under Sub-section (1), the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at one per cent. for every month or part of a month comprised in the period commencing from the day immediately following the end of the period mentioned in Sub-section (1) and ending with the day on which the amount is paid: Provided that, where as a result of an order under Section 154, or Section 155, or Section 250, or Section 254, or Section 260, or Section 262, or Section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under Sub-section (4) of Section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under this section had been reduced, the interest shall be reduced accordingly and the excess interest paid, if any, shall be refunded: Provided further that in respect of any period commencing on or before the 31st day of March, 1989, and ending after that date, such interest shall, in respect of so much of such period as falls after that date, be calculated at the rate of one and one-half per cent, for every month or part of a month. (2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (2), the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner may reduce or waive the amount of interest paid or payable by an assessee under the said subsection if he is satisfied that: (i) payment of such amount has caused would cause genuine hardship to the assessee ; (ii) default in the payment of the amount on which interest has been paid or was payable under the said sub-section was due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee ; and (iii) the assessee has co-operated in any inquiry relating to the assessment or any proceeding for the recovery of any amount due from him, (3) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in Sub-section (2), on an application made by the assessee before the expiry of the due date under Sub-section (1), the Assessing Officer may extend the time for payment or allow payment by instalments, subject to such conditions as he may think fit to impose in the circumstances of the case. (4) If the amount is not paid within the time limited under Sub-section (1) or extended under Sub-section (3), as the case may be, at the place and to the person mentioned in the said notice the assessee shall be deemed to be in default. 5. Learned Counsel further submitted that the impugned order at annexure A denying benefit to the assessee is bad for not showing such awareness; that it is not a speaking order and is liable to be quashed and at the worst, the matter can be remanded to the Commissioner for re-examination in the light of the statutory provisions and to pass orders afresh. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would rely on a decision of the Madras High Court reported in P. Ramasamy Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Others, (1999) 237 ITR 169 Mad. Learned Counsel also submits that the petitioner has no other remedy other than to approach this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction for a relief in the matter. 6. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the Commissioner has not only shown his awareness to the requirements in terms of the statutory provisions, but has also recorded a finding that in terms of the report given by the Assessing Officer the petitioner had not even co-operated with the Department for concluding the assessments. 7. 6. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the Commissioner has not only shown his awareness to the requirements in terms of the statutory provisions, but has also recorded a finding that in terms of the report given by the Assessing Officer the petitioner had not even co-operated with the Department for concluding the assessments. 7. Though Sri Shankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner would assail this finding by submitting that the report of the Assessing Officer had never been made known to the petitioner and the Commissioner could not have passed an order behind the back of the petitioner, the very fact that the petitioner was called upon to file returns by a notice issued under Section 148 is proof enough that the petitioner is not a person who is co-operating with the Department and he has failed to file his returns in time and was required to be put on notice for such purpose. I do not find any bona fides at all for such a person to claim the benefit under Section 220(2A) of the Act. No scope for interference. 8. Writ petition is dismissed.