M. S. A. SIDDIQUI, J.


(1) BY this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , the petitioners seek quashing of thecomplaint filed by the respondent under Section 276-C of the Income Tax Act.


(2) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the petition are that the respondent filed a complaint under Section 276-C of the Income Tax Act against the petitioner on the allegations that the petitioner company had filed tales return, of its income for the assessment year 1985-86 and had concealed considerable income which other wise belongs to it. By the agreement dated 2. 4. 1984, the petitioner company entered into contract with M/s. Taj Services Ltd. , to complete a project of silo-cum-poultry in Tanro, Haryana on turn-key basis for consideration of Rs. 24,65,000. 00. On scrutiny of the Income Tax return filed by the petitioner company for the assessment year 198586, it was found by the Assessing Officer that the petitioner company had wrong fully debited an expenditure of Rs. 1,44,608. 00 towards purchase of Sheets, M. S. Angles and plates from M/s. Sheel Swaroop Harish Chander of New Delhi. As per terms on the contract, cost of the said material was to be borne by M/s. Taj Service Ltd. Accordingly, the said expenditure of Rs. 1,44,608. 00 was treated as not related to the business and was added back to the income of the petitioner company. For furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, penalty proceedings were initiated against The petitioner company and a penalty of Rs. 98,694. 00 was imposed upon the company by the order dated 9. 11. 1999, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) set said (the said order of the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 98,694. 00 holding that the petitioner company had not filed false return of its income for the assessment year 1985-86. The petitioners contention in the present petition before this Court isthat the complaint cannot proceed as the order of the Assessing Officer for imposing penalty of Rs. 98,694. 00 in respect of the income tax return filed by the petiitone company has been set aside by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).


(3) THE question for consideration is whether the prosecution against the petitione company can be sustained in view of the order dated 9. 111999 passed by th ecommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) exonerating the petitioner company from the charges in question.


(4) " The order dated 9. 11. 1999 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) shows that the order of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty of Rs. 98,694. 00 has been set aside for want of evidence to prove that the petitioner company had filed inaccurate particulars of income in respect of the assessment year 1985-86. There is nothing on the record to show or suggest that the respondent has take nany appropriate proceedings to have the aforesaid order set aside in accordance ewith law. That being so, the said order of the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)has attained finality. Where the departmental authorities, whose task is to ensure strict compliance with the relevant provisions of a Statute are satisfied that there is exfacie no contravention of the provisions of any Act, it would be utterly unjust to force a person to face the ordeal of a trial on the same set of facts and evidence. The least that can be said in the case is that if the department does not feel aggrieved by the order of the Competent Authority and accepts it as final and correct, then I fail tounder stand as to how on the same set offacts and evidence, the department can foist criminal liability upon a person about whom it has acepted the findings of the competent authority. Thus, in view of the fact that the petitioner company has been exonerated by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the very basis of the complaint does not exist and the petitioner's prosecution on the same set of facts and evidence cannot be sustained. (P. S. Rajya Vs. State of Bihar, 1996 SCC (CRI)897. Ramesh Kumar Vs. the State, 1985 Cri. L. J. 681; Uttam Chand and Others vs. Income-tax Officer, Central Circle, Amritsar, (19182)133 I. T. R. (909): S. K. Sinha Vs. S. K. Shingal and Another, IV 1987 (1) Crimes 1987 (1)842 (Delhi); M/s. Jewels of India and Others Vs. The State and Another, XII 1987 (3) Crimes1987 (3) (754) Delhi; Harbhajan Kaur Vs. Uni

on of India and Others, 1993 JCC447 (Delhi): G. L. Didwania Vs. Income Tax officer, 1999 (108) ELT 16 (SC):hitech Carbon Products and Anr. Vs. Inspector Anti-Evasion Central Excise,n. D. 1999 III AD (Cr.) DHC 965 and Munna Lal Khandelwal and Ors. Vs. B. Hazra, enforcement Officer and Ors. , 83 (2000) DT 395). For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the proceedings emanating from the complaint filed by the respondent are quashed: Petitioner's bail bonds are discharged.