JUDGMENT : (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) : Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of C.O. Case No.14 of 2019 registered involving the offences punishable under Section 276 (C) and 277 of the Income Tax Act as well as the order dated 10.06.2022 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad fixed the case for framing of the charge and also the order dated 27.06.2022 by which charge has been framed against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Section 276 (C) and 277 of the Income Tax Act. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner being an employee of B.C.C.L. filed his two income-tax returns for the assessment year 2013-14. The first return was filed manually on 02.08.2013 disclosing his total taxable income at Rs.4,78,036/- and no refund was claimed against Tax Deducted at Source (T.D.S) of Rs.28,638/- before the Income Tax Department and thereafter, the petitioner made statement on solemn affirmation in verification portion of the said income-tax return to the effect that whatsoever income shown in the said return and annexure as well as statement accompanying it are true and correct. The second return for the same assessment year was filed by the petitioner electronically on 21.05.2014 showing total taxable income of Rs.1,35,260/- and claimed a refund of Rs.28,638/- against the said TDS and the accused also made statement on solemn affirmation in verification portion of the said return. The case of the accused was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The statement on oath under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was recorded on 12.07.2017. The accused/petitioner accepted his guilt and thereafter the Assessing Officer after hearing the accused at length completed the scrutiny assessment on 13.10.2017 on total income of Rs.4,78,040/-. A show-cause notice was issued by the Assessing Officer on 21.02.2018. The petitioner filed his submission before the Assessing Officer. The accused/petitioner accepted his guilt and thereafter the Assessing Officer after hearing the accused at length completed the scrutiny assessment on 13.10.2017 on total income of Rs.4,78,040/-. A show-cause notice was issued by the Assessing Officer on 21.02.2018. The petitioner filed his submission before the Assessing Officer. It was found by the Assessing Officer that the petitioner has concealed his true income and has filed his Income Tax return for the relevant assessment year 2013-14 by furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income, hence, Section 276 (C) and 277 of the Income Tax is attracted and accordingly on the basis of the written complaint filed by the Income Tax Officer concerned, C.O. Case No.14 of 2019 was registered in the court of Presiding Officer, Economic Offences at Dhanbad and the learned Presiding Officer has also taken cognizance and subsequently charge was framed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the sanction by the competent authority the case was filed against the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner filed income-tax return manually on 02.08.2013 disclosing his total income to be Rs.4,78,036/- and the petitioner again filed income-tax electronically on 21.05.2014 disclosing his income to be Rs.1,35,260/-. Both the returns were filed in respect of the assessment year 2013-14. The petitioner received notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and has accepted the total amount of annual income to be Rs.4,78,036/- and also deposited Rs.35,440/- and the same has been accepted by the Department. It is next submitted that once the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is received and the same has been complied with; it is deemed that Section 139 of the Income Tax Act has been complied with and the petitioner has also paid the penalty amount imposed upon and discharged his liability. It is further submitted that once the notice has been complied with; there was no occasion to file a complaint under Section 276 (C) and 277 of the Income Tax Act. To buttress his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Lalan Saw vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No.1558 of 2011 dated 28.07.2022. To buttress his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Lalan Saw vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No.1558 of 2011 dated 28.07.2022. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding arising out of C.O. Case No.14 of 2019 registered under Section 276 (C) and 277 of the Income Tax Act as well as the order dated 10.06.2022 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad fixed the case for framing of the charge and also the order dated 27.06.2022 by which charge has been framed against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Section 276 (C) and 277 of the Income Tax Act and now the case is pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad, be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of C.O. Case No.14 of 2019 registered involving the offences punishable under Section 276 (C) and 277 of the Income Tax Act as well as the order dated 10.06.2022 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad fixed the case for framing of the charge and also the order dated 27.06.2022 by which charge has been framed against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 276 (C) and 277 of the Income Tax Act and now the case is pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that the prosecution under Section 276 (C) and 277 of the Income Tax Act can go even after the assesse has deemingly complied with Section 139 of the Income Tax Act by making the payment of penalty which has been accepted by the Income Tax Department. It is next submitted that consequent upon subsequent electronically filed income-tax return of the petitioner depicting taxable income of Rs.1,35,260/- a refund of Rs.29,780/- including the interest under Section 244 (A) of the Income Tax has been issued which amounts to collection of the said refund amount by the petitioner. Hence, separate offences have been committed under Sections 276 (C) and 277 of the Income Tax Act. Hence, separate offences have been committed under Sections 276 (C) and 277 of the Income Tax Act. It is further submitted that the criminal proceeding ought not be quashed and this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is evident from the counter-affidavit filed by the opposite party No.2 that the Income Tax Department came to the knowledge that the petitioner has not filed correct income-tax return and notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued to the petitioner and pursuant thereto the petitioner filed income-tax return accepting his total taxable income to be Rs.4,78,036/- and the Department accepted the fact and imposed penalty. There is no dispute that the petitioner has deposited the penalty amount of Rs.35,440/-. Section 139 (5) of the Income Tax Act allows the assesse to furnish a revised return in case any person discovers any amount or wrong statement made in his return. There is no dispute that the petitioner has deposited the penalty amount of Rs.35,440/-. Section 139 (5) of the Income Tax Act allows the assesse to furnish a revised return in case any person discovers any amount or wrong statement made in his return. A plain reading of the Section 148 of the Income Tax Act which reads as under:- “148:-Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment.- Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, and subject to the provisions of section 148-A, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assesse a notice, along with a copy of the order passed if required, under clause (d) of Section 148-A, requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in such notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant assessment year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed; and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139.” Goes to show that the said section 148 of the Income Tax Act envisages that before making inter alia any assessment, reassessment or re-computation under Section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assesse a notice along with the copy of the order passed if the assessment is not filed correctly by the assesse requiring the assesse to furnish inter alia a return on his income if the return required to be furnished under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act. So, it is crystal clear from Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 that once the fresh return of the income is filed in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, the same amounts to deeming compliance of Section 139 of the Act. So, it is crystal clear from Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 that once the fresh return of the income is filed in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, the same amounts to deeming compliance of Section 139 of the Act. Had the Income Tax Department not accepted the deposit of penalty amount of the petitioner, about which there no dispute in spite of the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the accused should have stood in a different footing but in this case undisputedly, the Income Tax Department having accepted the reply of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act furnished by the assesse- petitioner, the same amounts to deeming compliance of Section 139 of the Income Tax Act. Hence, in this case the penal provision envisaged under Section 276 (C) and 277 of the Income Tax Act is not attracted. 7. Therefore, the continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner vide C.O. Case No.14 of 2019 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad will amount to abuse of process of law and this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding arising out of C.O. Case No.14 of 2019 registered under Section 276 (C) and 277 of the Income Tax Act as well as the order dated 10.06.2022 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad fixed the case for framing of the charge and also the order dated 27.06.2022 by which charge has been framed against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 276 (C) and 277 of the Income Tax Act and now the case is pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad, be quashed and set aside. 8. 8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of C.O. Case No.14 of 2019 registered under Section 276 (C) and 277 of the Income Tax Act as well as the order dated 10.06.2022 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad fixed the case for framing of the charge and also the order dated 27.06.2022 by which charge has been framed against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 276 (C) and 277 of the Income Tax Act and now the case is pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad, is quashed and set aside. 9. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. 10. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., interim relief granted to the petitioner vide order dated 19.09.2022 stands vacated.