Electronic-record evidence needs Section 65B compliance before supporting tax additions, and an uncorroborated printout failed.

An illegible electronic printout recovered from a third party's mobile phone could not, by itself, support an addition for unexplained investment because it lacked the certificate required for admissibility of electronic records and was not independently corroborated. The material was internally inconsistent, unsigned, and unsupported by any other evidence, and the person from whose phone it was recovered could not explain it. On these facts, the printout was treated as insufficient to prove any cash payment or unexplained investment, and the addition was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the addition for unexplained investment could be sustained on the basis of an illegible electronic printout recovered from a third party's mobile phone without a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and without independent corroboration.

Analysis: The seized material was an electronic record within the meaning of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and its use for assessment required compliance with the evidentiary safeguards applicable to electronic records. In the absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the printout could not be treated as admissible evidence for fastening an addition on the assessee. The document was also found to be illegible and internally inconsistent, did not bear signatures, and was not supported by any independent corroborative material. The person from whose mobile the material was recovered was also unable to explain it. On these facts, the document could not by itself establish any cash payment or unexplained investment.

Conclusion: The addition under Section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was not sustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---