The assessee-company was a textile manufacturer. It was represented by its managing director, the first petitioner and the executive director, the second petitioner.  The ACIT filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate under S. 200 and 190(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioners for offences under S. 276C(2) read with S.  278B(3) of the  Act, for the assessment year 2012-13 for wilful default in payment of penalty levied under S.  271(1)(c) for concealment of income on account of capital gains that arose by way of sale of certain immovable properties. The petitioners contended that the trial court had failed to take into consideration the necessity and requirement for marking the documents adduced by way of additional evidence. On a criminal revision petition  allowing the petition the Court held that  according to section 391 of the Code, if the appellate court opined that additional evidence was necessary, shall record its reasons and take such evidence itself. The petitioners had been charged under sections 276C(2) read with section 278B(3) of the Act for having wilfully failed to pay the penalty and having deliberately failed to admit the capital gains that arose from the sale transactions done by the assessee. The criminal revision petition under section 391 of the Code had been filed by the petitioners even at the time of presentation of the appeal. The documents sought to be marked as additional evidence were not new documents and they were documents relating to filing of returns with the Department in respect of the earlier assessment years, copies of which were also available with the Department. By marking these documents, the nature or course of the case would not be altered. The documents had not been produced before the trial court due to inefficiency or inadvertence of the person who had conducted the case. Where documents were left out to be marked due to carelessness and ignorance, they could be allowed to be marked for elucidation of truth, in the interest of justice, by exercising powers under section 391 of the Code. The petitioners should be allowed to let in additional evidence subject to the provisions of Chapter XXIII of the Code in the presence of the complainant and his counsel.( AY.2012-13)