Assessment under Section 153A: third-party digital chats and unrelated search material cannot justify additions in unabated years

Assessment under search laws cannot be sustained in unabated or completed assessment years in the absence of incriminating material found from the assessee; accordingly, additions premised solely on a third-party WhatsApp chat are inadmissible and deletable. The revenue bears the onus to prove investments beyond recorded consideration and cannot discharge it by reliance on uncorroborated, unrelated digital communications; hence such chats, post-facto to the transaction and not tying to the specific property, lack evidentiary value and cannot justify additions. Material or modus operandi recovered from a different entity or assessment year cannot be extrapolated to another assessee or year, and deletions of such additions are warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether additions in unabated/completed assessment years under section 153A are permissible in the absence of incriminating material found during search; (ii) Whether additions for alleged on-money in Nana Chiloda Project and Sumel Business Park-III based on third-party digital material are sustainable; (iii) Whether additions for alleged under-invoicing of sales by extrapolation from material seized from another entity/year are sustainable; (iv) Whether additions for alleged on-money in the Stellar Project based on third-party chats are sustainable; (v) Whether disallowance of exemption under section 10(38) (alleged penny-stock LTCG) in unabated years is sustainable without incriminating material; (vi) Whether addition of Rs.40,00,000 under section 69A/115BBE for alleged on-money in Earth Erita project can be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether additions in unabated/completed assessment years under section 153A are permissible in the absence of incriminating material found during search.

Analysis: The issue concerns the jurisdictional predicate for assessments under section 153A where the assessment year was completed on the date of search. The legal rule as applied requires that additions for such unabated years must be founded on incriminating material unearthed during the search in the case of the particular assessee and for the particular year; reliance on third-party or post-facto material unrelated to the assessee or year does not fulfill the jurisdictional requirement.

Conclusion: This issue is decided in favour of the Assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether additions for alleged on-money in Nana Chiloda Project and Sumel Business Park-III based on third-party digital material are sustainable.

Analysis: The facts involve additions founded on WhatsApp chats and digital notes recovered from third parties, differing survey/shop numbers, and dated after the transactions. The material lacked direct nexus, corroboration, cash trail, or verification and related in many cases to unabated years where no incriminating material was found from the assessee's premises.

Conclusion: Additions based on such third-party digital material are unsustainable; the issue is decided in favour of the Assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether additions for alleged under-invoicing of sales by extrapolation from material seized from another entity/year are sustainable.

Analysis: The AO extrapolated a 4060% suppression ratio from documents seized from a different legal entity and for a different assessment year. There was no incriminating material tied to the assessee for the relevant years, no mandatory rejection of the assessee's books under section 145(3) before estimation, and no corroborative evidence to support group-wide extrapolation.

Conclusion: Extrapolation from another entity/year without independent incriminating material is legally flawed; the issue is decided in favour of the Assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether additions for alleged on-money in the Stellar Project based on third-party chats are sustainable.

Analysis: The impugned additions rested on a third-party WhatsApp chat post-dating the transaction and not connected to the assessee; there was no corroborative cash evidence or nexus to the assessee's transaction.

Conclusion: The additions are unsustainable; the issue is decided in favour of the Assessee.

Issue (v): Whether disallowance of exemption under section 10(38) (alleged penny-stock LTCG) in unabated years is sustainable without incriminating material.

Analysis: The disallowance was based on general investigation reports and third-party statements without specific incriminating material seized from the assessee for the relevant years. The assessee produced documentary evidence (demat statements, contract notes, bank entries, STT payment) which was not effectively rebutted by corroborative incriminating material.

Conclusion: Disallowance in unabated years without incriminating material is unsustainable; the issue is decided in favour of the Assessee.

Issue (vi): Whether addition of Rs.40,00,000 under section 69A/115BBE for alleged on-money in Earth Erita project can be sustained.

Analysis: The AO relied on a higher provisional agreement value and a third-party statement; the assessee provided a plausible explanation of renegotiation, a sworn affidavit from the purchaser denying any cash payment, and there was no cash trail or cross-examination of the purchaser. The addition lacked corroboration and direct incriminating material.

Conclusion: The addition is unsustainable and is deleted; the issue is decided in favour of the Assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's findings uniformly apply that, where assessment years were unabated on the date of search, additions under section 153A must be supported by incriminating material found in the search in the assessee's case; absent such material or adequate corroboration, additions based on third-party digital data, extrapolation from other entities/years, or uncorroborated statements are legally unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Additions in completed/unabated assessment years under section 153A are impermissible unless directly based on incriminating material unearthed during the search relating to the specific assessee and assessment year; third-party digital material, uncorroborated extrapolation, or standalone statements do not satisfy this jurisdictional and evidentiary requirement.

---