Uncorroborated electronic evidence cannot sustain section 69A addition when cash receipt is not linked to the assessee.

ITAT Mumbai held that an addition under section 69A could not be sustained where it was based only on a WhatsApp chat, an Excel screenshot and estimated market rates, without corroborative evidence linking the assessee to undisclosed cash receipt. The electronic material did not identify the assessee or the specific property transaction, and its admissibility under section 65B of the Evidence Act was not established. The Assessing Officer also relied on market value without comparable instances, verification from registration or stamp authorities, or any basis to disregard stamp duty value. In the absence of search material showing receipt of cash over and above disclosed consideration, the inference was conjectural, so the deletion by the first appellate authority was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the addition made under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the basis of WhatsApp chats, a screenshot of an Excel sheet and estimated market rates could be sustained in the absence of corroborative evidence linking the assessee to any undisclosed cash receipt.

Analysis: The addition rested on a screenshot and a WhatsApp communication exchanged between third parties, which did not bear the assessee's name or specifically identify the impugned property transaction. The market value adopted by the Assessing Officer was not supported by comparable instances or any verification from the registration or stamp authorities, and the stamp duty value was ignored without showing any infirmity in it. The electronic material was also not shown to satisfy the admissibility requirements of section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the absence of any corroborative material from the search on the assessee or the connected person showing receipt of cash over and above the disclosed sale consideration, the inference drawn by the Assessing Officer was held to be conjectural.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69A was not sustainable and the deletion made by the first appellate authority was upheld.

---