Seized Electronic Evidence must be corroborated before supporting an unexplained investment addition; absence of independent proof negates the addition.

Whether seized electronic and documentary material can sustain an addition as unexplained investment: the tribunal applied the statutory presumption attaching to documents seized in search but held that WhatsApp chats and other seized items must be corroborated by independent evidence showing actual cash payment and attribution to the assessee; absent proof that the terms in messages were fulfilled or that cash was paid, the burden on revenue to establish unexplained investment was unmet and the addition could not be sustained. Outcome: deletion of the addition and dismissal of revenue appeals.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Assessing Officer's addition treating Rs. 23 crores (and proportionate shares) as unexplained cash investment under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based primarily on WhatsApp chats and without corroborative evidence, is sustainable.

Analysis: Applicable legal framework comprises the presumptions as to documents and material found during search under section 132(4)/132(4A) and section 292C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the requirements of corroborative evidence before treating seized material as income, the burden on revenue to establish unexplained investment under section 69, and rules on admissibility of electronic evidence (including section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) and exclusion of oral agreements by sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The seized material included draft agreement to sell, detailed cost estimate of refurbishment, board resolution recording completion of purchase at the registered consideration, statements under sections 132(4) and 131(1A), and the registered sale deed showing registration at Rs. 76 crores. The appellate authority examined the WhatsApp chats together with the entire seized material and recorded that while the chats created suspicion, the other seized documents and statements did not corroborate any actual payment of Rs. 23 crores in cash; instead they supported the position that Rs. 23 crores represented proposed refurbishment costs which were not incurred and that the transaction was ultimately executed and registered at Rs. 76 crores. The Assessing Officer relied primarily on isolated WhatsApp messages without demonstrating fulfillment of the terms suggested in those messages or producing independent corroboration of cash payment. The appellate authority applied the statutory presumption in search cases to treat seized documents as true, but concluded that the presumption and the entirety of seized material did not support an addition in absence of corroborative proof of actual undisclosed cash payment; therefore the addition under section 69 read with section 115BBE could not be sustained.

Conclusion: Addition treating Rs. 17,25,00,000/- (assessee's 75% share of alleged Rs. 23 crores) as unexplained investment under section 69 read with section 115BBE is deleted; the revenue's appeals are dismissed and cross-objections are dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Documents and electronic material seized in a search attract the statutory presumption of truth under sections 132(4)/132(4A) and 292C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but such seized material (including WhatsApp chats) cannot alone sustain an addition as undisclosed income under section 69/115BBE unless corroborative evidence establishes that the alleged cash consideration was actually paid and attributable to the assessee; absent such corroboration the burden on revenue remains unmet and the addition is not sustainable.

---