https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781435 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. en-us Mon, 27 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Nov 2025 07:56:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781435 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 27 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781435