JUDGMENT
K.A. Swami, Actg. C.J.
1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated June 16, 1992, passed by the learned single judge in Writ Petition No. 10682 of 1990.
2. The learned single judge has allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax and remitted and application filed by the respondent/petitioner under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
3. The Commissioner took the view that the assessee would be entitled to relief under section 273A(1) of the Act only in respect of the assessment year 1981-82 and 1982-83 whereas the application was filed by the assessee for waiver of penalty in respect of the assessment years 1978-79, 1980-81 to 1986-87.
4. The learned single judge has held that there is no such bar contained either in sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 273A of the Act. The learned single judge had followed a decision of the High Court of Allahabad in Ram Sarandas Har Swaroop Mal v. CIT . In respect of the assessment years 1978-79 and 1980-81 to 1986-87, the assessee has filed one application under sub-section (1) of section 273A of the Act.
5. The point for consideration is as to what is the scope of sub-section (3) of section 273A of the Act. Section 273A of the Act deal with the power to reduce or waive penalty, etc., in certain cases. Section 273A(1) provides as to, under what circumstances, the penalty can be waived. Section 273A(3) provides thus :
“Where an order has been made under sub-section (1) in favour of any person, whether such order relates to one or more assessment years, he shall not be entitled to any relief under this section in relation to any other assessment year at any time after the making of such order.”
6. While interpreting section 273A(3) of the Act, the Commissioner has laid stress on the words that “the assessee shall not be entitled to any relief under this section in relation to any other assessment year at any time after the making of such order.” These words only mean that once an order is passed under this sub-section which may relate to one or more than one year, the assessee will not be entitled to relief under it in respect of any other assessment years. But this does not mean that the order under this sub-section must be confined to one or two assessment years only as held by the Commissioner of Income-tax. He has failed to notice the words “whether such order relates to one or more assessment years”. Therefore, the order may relate to one or two years and even to more than two years. The assessee has made one application in respect of the assessment years in question for waiver of penalty. In sub-section (3) of section 273A of the Act, there is no bar to make one application for more than one assessment year and to consider that application in respect of all the years concerned therein because sub-section (3) specifically mentions “whether such order relates to one or more assessment years”. Therefore, in one application, the assessee can seek for waiver of penalty for more than one year and such application can be considered. The words contained in sub-section (3) of section 273A do not, in any way, prohibit consideration of such application for all the years. Therefore, the learned single judge is justified in quashing the order of the Commissioner. The view taken by the learned single judge is fortified by a decision of the High Court of Allahabad in Ram Sarandas Har Swaroop Mal v. CIT . In that case, it has been held thus (at page 506) :
“A reading of the sub-sections shows that, in case where the requirements mentioned therein are satisfied, the Commissioner gets the jurisdiction to waive the penalty or interest, as the case may be. Merely because the conditions mentioned in sub-section (1) are satisfied, no assessee can claim a total waiver of penalty/interest. It is a matter within the discretion of the Commissioner. He shall consider all the relevant fact and circumstances of the case an then decide whether penalty/interest should be waived and if so in what measure. Sub-section (3) says that where an order under sub-section (1) has been made once, it shall not be exercised in respect of the said person against whether in respect of the same assessment year or any other assessment year. At the same time, sub-section (3) also makes it clear that the order may relate to either one assessment year or more than one assessment year. It is not as if the power under sub-section (1) is available only for one assessment year. The true meaning of sub-section (3) is that the power shall be exercised only once in the case of a given person and not more than once.”
7. Thus, we are of the view that, as one application has been filed in respect of the assessment years in question, there is no question of considering the same separately for each assessment year. The application has to be considered only once as the power under sub-section (3) of section 273A(3) can be exercised only once in respect of an assessee and there can be one application relating to one or more assessment years. Hence, we are of the view that the Commissioner is not right in holding that the appellant is entitled to the relief under section 273A of the Act only in respect of the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. Accordingly, we agree with the view of the learned single judge and dismiss this appeal.