The assessee drew salary from a company. The Central Board of Direct Taxes received certain information that the assessee had created a trust in Europe with his father and brother, made a declaration of endowment in favour of the trust by endowing with a certain sum in Euros and maintained an account with a bank in a foreign State in Europe. From the documents obtained from the German tax authorities under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement it was found that a certain sum in Swiss francs including accrued interest was credited to this account. Since the assessee had not declared the bank balance in the foreign bank account either by way of income or deposits or interest from deposits, a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee. During the reassessment proceedings statements of the assessee were recorded under section 131. Though the assessee denied that he had created any trust and had deposited any money in the trust, he volunteered to pay the taxes on the basis of the information, without prejudice to his stand and paid the tax amount including the interest on January 27, 2010. Prosecution was initiated under section 276C(1) and section 277 of the 1961 Act on the sanction of the Commissioner under section 279(1) of the 1961 Act on March 24, 2011 for filing of a complaint. On a petition  to quash the proceedings  that (a)  questioning the limitation in issuing the notice, which was pending adjudication in a tax appeal (b) questioning the documents relied upon by the prosecution on the ground that they were only photo copies which were unauthenticated and (c) contending that since the levy of penalty had been reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals), criminal proceedings against the assessee were liable to be dropped as per section 279(1A) of the 1961 Act and seeking dispensation with personal appearance of the assessee before the trial court since he was a 70 year old senior citizen suffering from ailments.  Dismissing the petition, the Court held that,  that the tax case appeal before the court was with regard to the legality of the notice issued under section 148 of the 1961 Act whereas the prosecution over the alleged economic offence had to be tried before the appropriate court of law since there was no direct implication in conducting the criminal case. Moreover, under the Economic Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1974, there was no limitation for launching such type of cases.  That the documents relied upon by the Department were obtained from the tax authorities of Germany under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Their authenticity has been evidenced by the initials appended to the left and right hand side at the bottom of the those documents by the remitter of the information and the recipient of the information. The court could not decide the authenticity of the documents relied upon by the prosecution. It was for the trial court to decide and if it was of the view that the documents relied upon by the prosecution lacked evidentiary value, then it could reject those documents. That section 279(1A) of the 1961 Act would apply only when the penalty imposable or imposed was reduced or waived by an order under section 273A of the 1961 Act. Penalty could be reduced or waived under section 273A of the 1961 Act, provided the assessee had voluntarily and in good faith made full and true disclosure of particulars and co-operated in any enquiry relating to the assessment of his income and had either paid or made satisfactory arrangements for the payment. Admittedly, the assessee had paid the tax amount, without protest and in the meantime, without prejudice to his stand which meant that the assessee could still fight for his case. The Commissioner (Appeals), while reducing the penalty from 300 per cent. to 100 per cent. had observed that the admission of the assessee was not voluntary but a compelled one and had reduced the penalty only because the assessee had accepted and agreed to the addition, without protest. But, that did not brush aside the fact that the assessee had not satisfied the ingredients of section 273A of the 1961 Act, i. e., made disclosures voluntarily and in good faith. The order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) reducing the penalty was not an order under section 273A of the 1961 Act. Hence, section 279(1A) of the 1961 Act would not apply to the assessee. That the assessee’s seeking to dispense with his personal appearance before the trial court was neither a clerical nor an arithmetical error and therefore, the court was barred under section 362 of the Code to consider the request of the assessee after passing the order in the petition. Under section 362 of the Code the court could not alter its judgment once it was signed. The assessee could seek remedy under section 205 of the Code, before the trial court, for dispensing with his appearance. Court observed that Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prohibits the High Court to review or alter its judgment once it is signed. The inherent power under section 482 of the Code is purported to avoid the abuse of the process of the court and to secure ends of justice. Such power cannot be exercised to do something which is expressly barred under the Code.  (AY.2002-03)