JUDGMENT By Court: This writ application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with complaint case no. 289 of 1992 pending in the court of Special Judge, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur. 2. It appears that Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Investigation Circle, Jamshedpur filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging that they deliberately did not disclose a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/-as income of petitioner no. 1 with a view to evade tax and gave false declaration in the return. Accordingly, it is alleged that petitioners committed offences under sections 276(C) and 277 of the Income Tax Act. 3. Sri Biren Poddar, learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners submits that petitioners filed a return disclosing therein that annual income of petitioner no. 1 was Rs. 2,04,040/-. He further submits that in the said return, petitioners shown Rs. 1,70,000/-towards the share capital of Matadin Agarwal, Pinki Agarwal and Dropadi Devi Agarwal. Thus aforesaid amount can not be treated as income of petitioners' company. It is submitted that the assessing officer wrongly treated aforesaid share capital towards the income of company ( petitioner no. 1) and added the same in the income of Company under section 68 of the Income Tax Act , 1961. It is submitted that against the order of assessing officer, petitioners filed an appeal before the Income Tax Commissioner, Jamshedpur vide Appeal No. 30/JSR/91-92. It is submitted that the said appeal was dismissed and against that petitioners filed second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna vide Appeal No. 1 (PAT)/92. It is submitted that the said appeal was allowed by the Tribunal vide Annexure-4 and entire addition made by the assessing authority under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, has been deleted. It is submitted that after deletion of said addition there is no deliberate concealment of income by the petitioners. Accordingly, no offence made amount under section 276(C) and 277 of the Income Tax Act. 4. Sri Amit Kuamr J.C to Sri Deepak Roshan, learned Senior Standing Counsel of Income Tax Department, has not disputed aforesaid statements made in this application. On query, he stated that against the order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, no further appeal under section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, has been filed in this Court. Thus, according to him also, the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna has become final. 5. On query, he stated that against the order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, no further appeal under section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, has been filed in this Court. Thus, according to him also, the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna has become final. 5. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in G.L. Dinduwania and another Vs. Income Tax Officer and another reported in 1995 Suppl (2) SCC 724 that if the tribunal has set aside the finding of assessing officer then on the basis of finding of assessing officer, no prosecution can be sustained. 6. As noticed above, the assessing authority as well as the first appellate authority gave finding that Matadin Agarwal, Pinki Agarwal and Dropadi Devi Agarwal, have no separate source of income, thus the claim of petitioners that they deposited Rs. 1,70,000/-as share capital is wrong, therefore , the same was liable to be added towards the income of petitioner no. 1. Aforesaid findings of both the authorities had been set aside by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna vide order dated 06.12.1994. The tribunal at paragra 10 of its order had given following finding:- “ But from the materials available in the appeal record , we do not find that the share capitals standing in the names of Matadin Agarwal, Draupadi Agarwal and Pinki Agarwal are not genuine and that are un-explained cash credit of the assessee. In appeal record there is no materials on the basis of which it can be proved that the persons are fictitious persons or Benami share holders for the assessee; rather from the various assessment orders of these persons including the record furnished to the Registrar of Companies and share certificates issued by the company, it is to be seen that these persons are the genuine share holders. As already been said that there is no material also in the appeal record to show that the assessee company has maneuvered through these persons to explain its black money. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this point is also unjustified and so we reverse it.” Thus, the Tribunal deleted Rs. 1,70,000/-from the income of petitioner no. 1, which was added by assessing officer in the income of petitioner as unexplained cash credit, under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 7. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this point is also unjustified and so we reverse it.” Thus, the Tribunal deleted Rs. 1,70,000/-from the income of petitioner no. 1, which was added by assessing officer in the income of petitioner as unexplained cash credit, under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 7. In the aforesaid facts & circumstances, in view of aforesaid judgment of their Lordships of Supreme Court, petitioners are not liable to be prosecuted, as offence under section 276(c) and 277 of the Income Tax Act are not made out. 8. Accordingly, I allow this application and quash entire criminal proceeding in connection with complaint case no. 289 of 1992 pending in the court of Special Judge, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur.