Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the addition made under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on WhatsApp messages and a seized digital photo from a mobile phone, could be sustained in the absence of a certificate under section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and in the absence of corroborative evidence.
Analysis: The addition rested on a digital record recovered from a mobile phone, which was treated as evidence of alleged cash payments. The audited books and the confirmed account obtained from the third party did not support the alleged cash entries, and no corroborative material established actual payment or receipt of cash. The WhatsApp material was treated as secondary electronic evidence, and its admissibility depended on compliance with the certificate requirement under section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the absence of such compliance, the digital material could not be relied upon to sustain the addition.
Conclusion: The addition under section 69A was not sustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Electronic records relied upon as evidence must satisfy the statutory certificate requirement under section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and an addition under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot be sustained solely on inadmissible digital material without corroboration.