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 acomplaint under Section 276-C of the Income Tax Act against the petitioner on theallegations that the petitioner company had filed tales return, of its income for theassessment year 1985-86 and had concealed considerable income which otherwisebelongs to it. By the agreement dated 2. 4. 1984, the petitioner company entered intocontract 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 ofthe 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 wrongfullydebited an expenditure of Rs. 1,44,608. 00 towards purchase of Sheets, M. S. Anglesand plates from M/s. Sheel Swaroop Harish Chander of New Delhi. As per terms onthe 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 thebusiness and was added back to the income of the petitioner company. For furnishinginaccurate particulars of income, penalty proceedings were initiated against Thepetitioner company and a penalty of Rs. 98,694. 00 was imposed upon the companyby the order dated 9. 11. 1999, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) set asid (the said order of the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 98,694. 00 holding thatthe petitioner company had not filed false return of its income for the assessmentyear 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 imposingpenalty of Rs. 98,694. 00 in respect of the income tax return filed by the petiitonecompany has been set aside by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ). ( 3 ) THE question for consideration is whether the prosecution against the petitionecompany can be sustained in view of the order dated 9. 111999 passed by thecommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) exonerating the petitioner company from thecharges in question. ( 4 ) " The order dated 9. 11. ( 3 ) THE question for consideration is whether the prosecution against the petitionecompany can be sustained in view of the order dated 9. 111999 passed by thecommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) exonerating the petitioner company from thecharges 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 companyhad 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 takenany appropariate proceedings to have the aforesid order set aside in accordancewith 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 ensurestrict 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 aperson to face the ordeal of a trial on the same set of facts and evidence. The leastthat can be said in the case is that if the department does not feel aggrieved by theorder of the Competent Authority and accepts it as final and correct, then I fail tounderstand as to how on the same set offacts and evidence, the department can foistcriminal liability upon a person about whom it has acepted the findings of thecompetent authority. Thus, in view of the fact that the petitioner company has beenexomerated by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the very basis of thecomplaint does not exist and the petitioner s prosecution on the same set of factsand 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 Othersvs. 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. Union 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. 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. Union 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 emanatingfrom the complaint filed by the respondent are quashed: Petitioner s bail bonds aredischarged.