Order : AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. 1. This petition is filed seeking the interest under Section 132- B(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and the quashing of the order dated 13.12.2012 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur (for short, “CIT”). 2. The brief facts are that the search was conducted on the hospital and premises of the petitioners and apart from other things cash was seized. The proceedings initiated in pursuance to search culminated in the order by settlement commission in case of petitioner No.1. The assessment under Section 143(3), after getting approval from the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax under Section 153-D was framed in case of petitioner No.2. The claim of the petitioner for interest on delayed refund was rejected on the grounds that the orders passed by the Settlement Commission shall be not covered by the provisions of Section 132-B(4). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage seeks permission to withdraw the present petition qua petitioner No.1 with liberty to file fresh with better particulars. Viz-a-viz petitioner No.2 the contention is that the assessment order of the petitioner No.2 was under Section 153-A as the order was passed after seeking approval from the Joint Commissioner under Section 153-D. 4. The grievance raised is that the CIT has not considered the case of the petitioner No.2 on its own facts. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents defends the impugned order and submits that common representation was given for both the petitioners and was considered accordingly. 6. The liberty sought qua petitioner No.1 to withdraw the petition is allowed as prayed for. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the pleadings, it is forthcoming that the case of petitioner Nos.1 & 2 is not similar. The case of petitioner No.1 was settled by Settlement Commission, whereas an assessment order was passed in the case of petitioner No.2. The CIT has not considered that the claim for interest in both the cases is on different footings. The reasons recorded for rejecting the claim of interest qua petitioner No.1 would not apply to the case of petitioner No.2. 8. The impugned order qua petitioner No.2 is set-aside and matter is remitted back to CIT to decide the claim of petitioner No.2 afresh in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing. 9. The writ petition is allowed.