Held that the Department’s appeal and allowing the assessee’s, that the criminal court had discharged the assessee from prosecution under sections 276C(1), 276D and 277 of the Act on the same facts, stating that merely because an amount had been offered as tax in order to buy peace that did not mean that the person had admitted that such amounts belonged to him, that the Department had failed to bring on record any material, document or circumstance suggesting that the assessee had opened the foreign bank account at a particular branch or carried out any transaction with the foreign bank account during the relevant period or availed of the services of the bank account for any purpose or received any benefit or had any link with the entities or accounts stated in the foreign bank account details, that there were inherent lacuna in the very foundation of the prosecution and the question of obtaining necessary incriminating material by conducting further investigation was not permissible in law in such case. Mere suspicion was not sufficient to proceed further by framing of charge and force the accused to face or deal of criminal trial. Considering the facts in totality in the light of the decision of the chief metropolitan magistrate, there is no merit in the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.(AY.2006-07, 2007-08)