$~11 & 12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 9563/2024 AMIT KAPOOR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Harshit Thareja, Adv.

versus INCOME TAX OFFICE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr.

Shivendra Singh, JSC, Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSC, Mr. Surya Jindal and Ms. Prakriti Rastogi, Advs.

12 + CRL.M.C. 9572/2024 AMIT KAPOOR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Harshit Thareja, Adv.

versus INCOME TAX OFFICE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr.

Shivendra Singh, JSC, Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSC, Mr. Surya Jindal and Ms. Prakriti Rastogi, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

O R D E R

% 29.10.2025

1. These petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 have been filed by the Petitioner Amit Kapoor, seeking to set aside impugned orders dated 25.10.2024 passed by Ld. ACJM (Special Acts), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [“trial court”], in CT Case No. 7319/2019 and CT Case No.

7320/2019, both titled as “Income Tax Office v. Amit Kapoor”.

2. The said complaints were instituted by the Income Tax Department under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging that the Petitioner had failed to file returns of income for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10, despite having made substantial cash deposits of Rs.1,62,24,642/- and Rs.1,07,74,428/- respectively during the relevant financial years.

3. Upon consideration of the material placed on record, the Ld. Trial Court took cognizance on 17.07.2019, observing that a prima facie case under Section 276CC of the Act was made out against the Petitioner in both complaints.

4. During the course of pre-charge evidence, the complainant/respondent examined CW-1, Mr. Sukhvir Singh Ruhil, who deposed regarding issuance of two notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act dated 11.03.2015 and 16.03.2015, purportedly served upon the accused in connection with both assessment years. CW-1 was thereafter duly cross-examined by the defence.

5. Subsequently, CW-2, Mr. R.L. Meena, appeared and produced a fresh notice dated 30.03.2015 issued under Section 148, which was not part of the original complaint records in either of the two cases.

6. Thereafter, the respondent moved applications under Section 91 Cr. P.C. in both cases, seeking permission to “place on record relevant documents” on behalf of the Income Tax Department pertaining to A.Y.

2008-09 and A.Y. 2009-10.

7. The Petitioner objected to the said applications on the ground that the documents sought to be introduced were already in possession of the complainant at the time of filing of the complaint, and that the provisions of Section 91 Cr. P.C. cannot be invoked to bring in new documents at the stage of evidence or to fill up lacunae after cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.

8. Despite the objections, the Ld. Trial Court, by impugned orders dated 25.10.2024, allowed the complainant’s applications under Section 91 Cr. P.C., thereby permitting the Income Tax Department to place on record the additional documents, including the notice dated 30.03.2015, at the stage of evidence.

9. Aggrieved by the said orders, the Petitioner has preferred the present petitions contending that the impugned orders suffer from material illegality, amount to amendment of the original complaints, and cause serious prejudice to the defence by allowing introduction of new material after cognizance and partial evidence.

Submissions of counsel of petitioner

10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the impugned orders dated 25.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Trial court suffers from procedural irregularity. It is contended that the Ld. Trial Court has misconstrued the scope and object of Section 91 Cr. P.C., which cannot be invoked by the petitioner to introduce documents from his own possession at the time of filing of the complaint. It is submitted that such belated introduction of documents, after cognizance has been taken and the pre- charge evidence