https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785127 Electronic evidence cannot support an addition unless its authenticity, integrity, and chain of custody are satisfactorily established, including proper compliance with section 65B safeguards. Here, the digital image was the sole basis of the addition, but the record did not adequately show how it was retrieved, analysed, or reliably linked to the assessee's transaction, and no proper forensic trail was demonstrated. In the absence of dependable surrounding material and evidentiary sanctity, the electronic record was insufficient to sustain an inference of undisclosed investment, and the addition was deleted in favour of the assessee. en-us Wed, 14 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Jan 2026 11:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785127 Electronic evidence cannot support an addition unless its authenticity, integrity, and chain of custody are satisfactorily established, including proper compliance with section 65B safeguards. Here, the digital image was the sole basis of the addition, but the record did not adequately show how it was retrieved, analysed, or reliably linked to the assessee's transaction, and no proper forensic trail was demonstrated. In the absence of dependable surrounding material and evidentiary sanctity, the electronic record was insufficient to sustain an inference of undisclosed investment, and the addition was deleted in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 14 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785127