Assessee sought a waiver of interest under section 220(2A), arguing that tax liability could not be paid due to delays in encashing seized assets by department.  Chief Commissioner rejected waiver application, citing insufficient grounds-Assessee challenged Chief Commissioner’s rejection alleging genuine hardship due to seized assets. On writ the Court held that the  assessee failed to provide a balance sheet or acceptable material disclosing assets and liabilities, as required to substantiate claims of hardship  Although gold and diamonds were seized in 2007, assessee did not request their sale until 2013 and later requested that sale be withheld.Claims that seized assets were not utilized for tax payments were inconsistent and contradicted by record.  Assessee’s responses about income sources were ambiguous, and actions showed a constant flip-flop on key matters.  CBDT guidelines also excluded diamond jewellery from ‘Streedhan,’ undermining related claims. Court held that the  assessee failed to meet all three mandatory conditions for waiver (i) no genuine hardship was established, as financial disclosures were inadequate, (ii) failure to pay was not due to uncontrollable circumstances, evidenced by conflicting requests regarding seized assets and (iii) assessee’s inconsistent cooperation undermined claims of full compliance.   Chief Commissioner was justified in rejecting assessee’s application for waiver of interest under section 220(2A). Writ petition is dismissed.