JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) :

Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anurag Vijay, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with C/2 Case No.684 of 2016 including the order dated 30.05.2016, whereby, summon has been issued against the petitioner and also the order dated 15.07.2017, whereby, substance of accusation under Section 276(c)(1) of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 has been explained to the petitioner, pending in the court of the learned Special Judge (Economic Offence) cum Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-II, Jamshedpur.

3. The complaint case was filed by opposite party no.2 alleging therein that the assessee (petitioner) filed returns of income for the Assessment Year 2011-12 on 31.07.2011 declaring a total income of Rs.18,83,940/-. The case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny under Section Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). The assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax was passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamshedpur on 13.09.2013 determining the total income at Rs.20,66,090/- only. In assessment order, three additions, first one at Rs.1,64,695/- only on the account of undisclosed interest income on National Saving Certificates, second one at Rs.4,351/- on account of undisclosed Bank Interest and third one at Rs.13,100/- on account of undisclosed interest on Fixed Deposits with Telco Ltd. were made. Before making the said additions as mentioned above, the assessee is said to have been given the reasonable opportunity of being heard, but the assessee failed to offer any satisfactory explanation in this regard. The assessee had concealed the income of Rs.1,82,146/- deliberately as mentioned above. The assessee has deliberately provided inaccurate details of his income which leads to concealment of income. Therefore, in this matter penalty proceeding was also initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 and the penalty proceeding was also confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Jamshedpur vide his order dated 27.11.2015 passed in appeal No.206/JSR/2013-14. The assessee is alleged to have attempted to evade the tax liability by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income leads to concealment of income of Rs.1,82,146/-. Thus, the accused made himself liable to be prosecuted under Section 276C(1) of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961. The sanction order under Section 279(1) of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 for launching prosecution under Section 276C(1) of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 against the accused for the Assessment Year 2011-12 has been accorded to by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamshedpur on 03.03.2016. However, in the aforesaid sanction order, some mistake was apparent which later on was rectified by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamshedpur vide order dated 21.03.2016 passed under Section 154 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961.

4. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject matter of the assessment in the complaint case was also the subject matter of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961. He submits that against the penalty order dated 27.11.2015, the petitioner filed an appeal being ITA No.117/Ran/2016 before the appellate tribunal under the said Act and vide order dated 08.12.2016, the said appeal was allowed and penalty order was set aside. He submits that in view of this fact, the foundation itself has been set aside. The entire criminal prosecution with regard to the said Act is malicious one. He also submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C. Builders and another v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax ; [(2004) 2 SCC 731].

5. On the other hand, Mr. Anurag Vijay, learned counsel for the Income Tax Depar