JUDGMENT Naresh Kumar Sinha, J. 1. M/s Cut-Piece Wala, petitioner no. 1 is a registered partnership firm and petitioner nos. 2 to 6 are the partners of the firm. On a written complaint filed by the Income-tax Officer O.P. no. 2 the petitioners are being prosecuted for offences u/ss. 276C and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the 'Act') before the court of Presiding Officer, Special Court (Economic Offences) Muzaffarpur, vide complaint case no. 71 of 1991. The petitioners have invoked the inherent powers of this court u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter the 'Code') for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against them including the order dated 27th March, 1991 taking cognizance for the aforesaid offences. 2. As per allegations made in the complaint petition the petitioners who are assessee under the Act had filed a return of income showing a total income of Rs.40,250/- for the assessment year 1988-89. The assessment was, however, completed on a total income of Rs. 1,03,993/-. On appeal preferred against the aforesaid assessment order C.I.T. (A) Patna, confirmed an addition of Rs. 47,555/- as income from additional sources. The petitioner-firm and its partners were accordingly prosecuted for the offences alleged for wilful attempt to evade tax by concealing their income and furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof. The complaint making the aforesaid allegations was filed at the. instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax as required under Section 279(1) of the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that after the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) passed his order on 17.12.90 an application was filed before him for review of the said order. Subsequently the petitioners filed appeal bearing no LT. Appeal No. 19 (Pat) 91 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order dated 17.12.90 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal). This application for quashing the criminal proceeding was filed while the petitioners' appeal before the Tribunal was pending. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners enclosing a copy of the order dated 24.10.94 copy of which is Annexure-6 to the supplementary affidavit. There is no dispute between the parties that by the aforesaid order the Tribunal allowed the appeal in full and the remaining additional amount of Rs. 42,555/- was deleted. Another addition of Rs. 5000/- was also deleted by the Tribunal. 4. There is no dispute between the parties that by the aforesaid order the Tribunal allowed the appeal in full and the remaining additional amount of Rs. 42,555/- was deleted. Another addition of Rs. 5000/- was also deleted by the Tribunal. 4. From the copy of an order of the Income-tax Officer passed under Section 254 of the Act copy of which is Annexure-7 and refund order for the assessment year 1988-89 copy of which is Annexure-8 it appears that after the order of the Tribunal a total relief of Rs. 47,555/- was allowed and a refund for Rs. 11,306/- was ordered in favour of petitioner no. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that since the Tribunal had finally determined that there was no concealment of income by the assessee the criminal prosecution of the partnership firm and its partners cannot be legally sustained and deserved to be quashed. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a judgment of the Apex court in C.L. Didwania Vs. Income-tax Officer (1995 Suppl. (II) SCC 724). In that case also a criminal prosecution had been launched and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had set aside the assessment. An application filed u/s. 482 of the Code for quashing the criminal prosecution was dismissed by the High Court. The Apex court in appeal observed that the whole question was whether the appellant made a false statement regarding the income which according to the assessing authority had escaped assessment, and that so far as this issue was concerned the finding of the Appellate Tribunal was conclusive and hence the prosecution cannot be sustained. The Apex Court thereafter proceeded to quash the criminal proceeding against the appellant-assessee. Learned counsel for the Revenue is fair to concede that the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court covers the facts of the present case. 5. For the foregoing reasons this application is allowed and the criminal prosecution of the petitioners including the impugned order taking cognizance are quashed to secure the ends of justice.