2025 (11) TMI 173 - HC - Income Tax

s.91 CrPC allows production of departmental notices in s.276CC complaints at any stage, no prejudice found

Amit Kapoor Versus Income Tax Office

Delhi HC dismissed the petition and upheld the trial court's orders permitting production of departmental notices under s.91 CrPC in complaints under ... Complaints instituted by the Income Tax Department u/s 276CC - Petitioner had failed to file returns of income despite having made substantial cash deposits - main thrust of the Petitioner’s argument is that Section 91 Cr. P.C. cannot be used as a device to cure defects in the prosecution case or to fill up lacunae after the trial has commenced HELD THAT:- This Court finds no merit in the said contention. The language of Section 91 Cr. P.C. is clear inasmuch as it empowers the Court to summon or permit production of any document or thing “if such production appears to the Court to be necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.” The provision does not restrict its invocation to any particular stage of the proceeding. The powers of the Court under Section 91 Cr. P.C. are of wide amplitude and may be exercised at any stage of the proceeding, provided the Court is satisfied about the necessity or desirability of the document for a just decision of the case. The object of Section 91 is to enable the Court to discover the truth by ensuring that all material evidence is brought before it. In the present case, the documents sought to be placed on record are official departmental notices forming part of the Income Tax record. The Ld. Trial Court, after due consideration of the rival contentions, allowed the applications observing that the production of such notices was necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the complaint. The impugned orders reflect due application of mind and record cogent reasons for permitting such production. The apprehension of the Petitioner that allowing these documents would amount to amendment of the complaint or cause prejudice to the defence is misplaced. The Petitioner retains full opportunity to crossexamine the witness with respect to the additional documents and to contest their evidentiary value during trial. This Court also finds merit in the reasoning of the Ld. Trial Court that the production of such documents does not alter the substratum of the complaint. The foundational allegation that the Petitioner failed to file returns of income despite substantial cash deposits remains unchanged. The additional document may just merely clarify the procedural compliance under the Income Tax Act and are relevant for determining the culpability of the accused under Section 276CC. This Court finds no infirmity, illegality, or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the Ld. Trial court. The Trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction within the bounds of law and in furtherance of justice. The power u/s 482 Cr. P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice. In the present case, no such contingency is made out. The impugned orders merely facilitate production of documents of the department relevant to the determination of the issues involved in the complaints u/s 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether Section 91 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to summon or permit production of documents at the stage of evidence (after cognizance and partial pre-charge evidence), including documents allegedly already in the complainant's possession when the complaint was filed. 2. Whether permitting production of such documents at that stage (a) effects an impermissible amendment or material alteration of the complaint or prosecution case, (b) causes irreversible prejudice to the accused, and (c) thereby warrants interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. Whether the trial court's exercise of discretion under Section 91 Cr.P.C. in admitting official departmental records at the evidence stage was legally sustainable. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Scope and temporal application of Section 91 Cr.P.C. Legal framework: Section 91 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to summon or permit production of any document or thing 'if such production appears to the Court to be necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.' The provision contains no express temporal limitation restricting invocation to any particular stage. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court interprets the plain language of Section 91 as conferring a broad power exercisable 'at any stage of the proceeding' so long as the document's production is necessary or desirable for just adjudication. Emphasis is placed on the object of Section 91 - enabling the Court to discover truth by ensuring material evidence is before it. The Court rejects a rigid rule that Section 91 cannot be used after cognizance or after commencement of evidence. Precedent Treatment: The judgment does not rely on or expressly overrule any prior authority; instead it treats the statutory text as dispositive of the temporal scope. Any prior narrower constructions are implicitly disapproved to the extent inconsistent with the statutory language and the interest of enabling full adjudication. Ratio vs. Obiter: The Court's holding that Section 91 is not stage-bound and may be invoked during evidence is ratio with respect to the present petitions and is applied to uphold the trial court's orders. Conclusion: Section 91 Cr.P.C. may lawfully be invoked to summon or permit production of documents during the evidence stage, including after cognizance, provided the Court is satisfied of necessity or desirability for the proceeding. Issue 2 - Whether production of documents already in complainant's possession amounts to filling lacunae, amendment of complaint, or causes prejudice warranting quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Legal framework: Section 482 Cr.P.C. permits interference only sparingly to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice. The inquiry requires assessment of whether the trial court's orders caused illegality, perversity, or irreparable prejudice to defence fairness. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court rejects the contention that production under Section 91 necessarily equates to permitted amendment or impermissible supplementation of prosecution case. Focus is placed on whether the production alters the substratum of allegations - i.e., whether the foundational charge remains the same. The Court reasons that official departmental notices are evidentiary and clarificatory of procedural compliance; their production does not change the essential allegation of failure to file returns despite specified cash deposits. Precedent Treatment: The judgment applies the settled principle that Section 482 should be exercised only in exceptional cases; it treats this principle as controlling and finds no exceptional circumstances here. No specific precedents are cited or overruled. Ratio vs. Obiter: The conclusion that admission of the additional departmental notices did not constitute an impermissible amendment and did not cause irreversible prejudice is part of the operative ratio upholding the trial court's orders. Conclusion: Mere production of documents previously in the complainant's possession does not automatically amount to filling lacunae or amending the complaint; absent demonstrable prejudice or alteration of the charge's substratum, such production does not justify interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Issue 3 - Legality of the trial court's exercise of discretion to admit official departmental records at evidence stage Legal framework: The trial court is vested with discretion under Section 91 to summon documents necessary or desirable for justice; its exercise must be rational, reasoned and directed towards adjudicative completeness. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reviewed whether the trial court applied its mind and recorded cogent reasons. Finding that the trial court permitted production on the basis that the notices were necessary for complete and effective adjudication, the Court concluded the discretion was exercised within legal bounds. The availability of cross-examination and contest on evidentiary value was held to preserve defence rights. Precedent Treatment: The decision follows general principles governing discretionary powers of trial courts (exercise with reasons; in furtherance of justice) rather than invoking specific case law distinctions. Ratio vs. Obiter: The finding that the trial court lawfully exercised its Section 91 discretion in the facts of the case forms part of the ratio upholding the impugned orders. Conclusion: The trial court's admission of the departmental notices under Section 91 Cr.P.C., after consideration of objections and for the purpose of fuller adjudication, was a lawful exercise of discretion and not susceptible to interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Cross-references and Interrelation of Issues The treatment of Issue 1 (temporal scope of Section 91) directly informs Issue 3 (discretionary exercise), while Issue 2 (prejudice/amendment) sets the limiting principle preventing Section 91's use from becoming a device to unfairly alter charges. The Court's conclusions on all three issues are interdependent: because Section 91 may be invoked at any stage and the trial court recorded reasons showing necessity, and because production did not alter the foundational allegation or cause irreparable prejudice, interference under Section 482 was unwarranted. Overall Conclusion The impugned orders permitting production of additional departmental documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C. at the evidence stage were legally sustainable; such exercise of discretion did not amount to impermissible amendment of the complaint nor cause prejudice justifying quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.