The assessee contended that the intention of the Legislature is to prosecute only where concrete materials are unearthed during the search or survey. It is stated in Circular No. 24 of 2019 ([2019] 417 ITR (St.) 5) that the prosecution under section 276C(1) shall be launched only after the confirmation of the order imposing penalty by the Appellate Tribunal. The object of the statute discernible under section 276 is that to maintain a complaint by the Deputy Director, the material seized or collected during search should unerringly point towards the accused. On revision petition the Court held that  ordinarily, it is only the concerned AO who completes the assessment/reassessment, who is competent to file a complaint and proceed under section 276C and 277 for wilful evasion of tax or filing false verification. The Deputy Director, who had carried out search/survey in the case of a third party and wherein statements were recorded which loosely pertain to the accused, could not initiate the proceedings against the accused only on the basis of such statements, without any further incriminating material being seized which pertains to the accused. That showing of ignorance by one of the assesses by maintaining that only her husband was aware of the return such conduct could not be construed as abetment to attract the offence under section 278 . ( AY. 2014-15, 2015-16)