Uncorroborated digital data and third-party statements cannot sustain on-money or commission additions without reliable proof of the transaction.

An addition based on presumed commission for obtaining accommodation entries could not survive once the primary accommodation-entry addition had already been deleted, and the consequential commission disallowance was deleted. Alleged on-money payment for purchase of residential property was also unsustainable under section 69B because the relied-upon pen-drive data lacked proper authentication and section 65B(4) certification, the seized material was treated as a dumb document, and third-party statements without cross-examination or independent corroboration were insufficient to prove extra consideration over the registered sale deed value. The additions were therefore deleted and the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to deletion of the addition made on the presumption of commission expenditure for obtaining accommodation entries, and (ii) whether the addition towards alleged on-money payment for purchase of residential property could be sustained under section 69B.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to deletion of the addition made on the presumption of commission expenditure for obtaining accommodation entries.

Analysis: The addition for commission was founded entirely on the assumption that the assessee had paid commission for procuring accommodation entries. The related addition for the alleged accommodation entries themselves had already been deleted. Once the principal addition failed, the consequential presumption of commission expenditure could not stand independently.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and the commission addition was deleted.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition towards alleged on-money payment for purchase of residential property could be sustained under section 69B.

Analysis: The material relied upon consisted of data extracted from a pen drive and third-party statements. The extracted data was treated as lacking reliable evidentiary value because it was not supported by proper authentication, a certificate under section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or independent corroboration from material found with the assessee. The seized material was also treated as a dumb document, and the vendors' statements, without supporting evidence and in the absence of cross-examination or other cogent corroboration, were found insufficient to establish that extra consideration had actually passed over and above the registered sale deed consideration.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and the addition under section 69B was deleted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in full and the additions challenged by the assessee were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: An addition for alleged undisclosed expenditure or on-money payment cannot be sustained on mere presumption, uncorroborated third-party statements, or unauthenticated digital material without reliable supporting evidence establishing the actual unaccounted transaction.

---