Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. By the impugned order dated March 15, 1993, in Complaint Case No. 26 of 1993, the Special Court of Economic Offences, Dhanbad, has taken cognizance against the petitioners under Secs. 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Petitioner No. 1, Kailash Stone Works, is a registered firm at Pakur in the district of Sahebganj and the other petitioners are its partners. The petitioners derive income from manufacture and sale of stone chips. On November 30, 1990, the petitioners filed a return showing a total income of Rs. 2,32,090 for the assessment year 1990-91 and a revised return on January 16, 1991, showing a total income of Rs. 1,94,450. The assessment was completed under Sec. 143(3)/182(1) on total income of Rs. 3,01,800. In the course of scrutiny of accounts, the Assessing Officer found that on sale of Rs. 52,52,896, G. P. of Rs. 10,63,631 has been shown which works out to 20.36 per cent. On the basis of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the assessment year 1988-89, the G. P. rate was taken at 21.6 per cent. and the resultant addition of Rs. 34,476 was made in trading account. It is further noticed that the petitioners had claimed expenses under the head general charges Rs. 59,270, printing and stationery Rs. 39,897, travelling expenses Rs. 79,872 and canteen expenses Rs. 86,763. Examination of the account books revealed that no proper vouchers were maintained. 3. The complaint was filed by the Income-tax Officer, Deoghar, before the Special Court of Economic Offences, Dhanbad. The complaint petition also mentioned that the penalty proceeding under Sec. 271(1)(c) has also been initiated. According to the complaint petition, the petitioners had wilfully attempted to evade tax, interest or penalty chargeable by deliberately concealing the true particulars of income and the petitioner, Rochal Das, had wilfully made a statement in the verification of the return which was false and as such the petitioners had committed an offence under Secs. 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. As stated earlier, penalty proceeding was also started against the petitioners. The Income-tax Officer levied penalty of Rs. 83,000 for concealment of income. On appeal filed by the petitioners, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by his order dated October 16, 1992, cancelled the penalty levied for concealment of income and allowed the petitioners appeal vide annexure-4. 4. As stated earlier, penalty proceeding was also started against the petitioners. The Income-tax Officer levied penalty of Rs. 83,000 for concealment of income. On appeal filed by the petitioners, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by his order dated October 16, 1992, cancelled the penalty levied for concealment of income and allowed the petitioners appeal vide annexure-4. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found that there was no concealment of income and the order of the Assessing Officer to the contrary was wrong and it was cancelled. 5. It appears that against the said order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Revenue filed appeal before the Income-tax Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal by order dated November 24, 1995, dismissed the Revenues appeal. 6. Since the penalty imposed by the Income-tax Officer was set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal, the prosecution against the petitioners is wholly unwarranted and is accordingly quashed. This application is accordingly allowed and the order dated March 15, 1993, passed in Complaint Case No. 26 of 1993 is hereby quashed.