2026 (1) TMI 964

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l, the assessee has challenged not only the legality of the assessment order but also on the merit, i.e. the genuineness of addition of Rs. 2,90,05,500/- under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee [Late Sh. Krishna Kumar Gupta (Date of 09.05.2021)] filed his original Income Tax Return ('ITR') of the relevant year on 31.12.2021 declaring income of Rs. 48,66,480/-. The case was picked up for scrutiny; hence, the Assessing Officer ('AO') issued notice dated 30.06.2022 under section 143(2) of the Act to the deceased assessee (Late Sh. Krishna Kumar Gupta). 3.1 Meanwhile, search and seizure operations under section 132 of the Act were carried out on 06.01.202....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as Rs. 8,00,11,000/-. Hence, the difference of Rs. 5,80,11,000/- (Rs.8,00,11,000/- minus Rs. 2,20,00,000/-) was taxed in the hands of the assessee @ 50%. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but did not succeed. Hence, this appeal is here. 4. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel contended that the notice dated 30.06.2022 issued under section 143(2) of the Act to the deceased assessee was not legally sustainable. Hence, the same was dropped. Later, the assessment proceedings under section 153C of the Act were initiated on 30.01.2023 in case of the assessee through Legal Heir after recording satisfaction to do so. However, the consequential assessment initiated under section 153C of the Act, as ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 8,00,11,000/- mentioned in that WhatsApp message should have to face the similar assessment. It was further submitted that in violation of principle of natural justice, neither the said documents were provided to the assessee nor the opportunity to cross examine both persons between whom the said WhatsApp messaging had taken place along with all sellers of the said property though their statements had been considered as evidence for making addition of Rs. 2,90,05,500/-. 6. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the satisfaction note dated 05.01.2023 recorded in 7 pages (Page 1-7 of the Paper Book-I) by the Ld. AO for initiating assessment proceedings for AYs 2015-16 to 2021-22 under section 153C of the Act. The Ld. AR questioned one satisfa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) TMI 21. It was further submitted that the Ld. AO's finding was on surmises and conjectures. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme High Court in the case of Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram 1959 (5) TMI 12 and the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dinesh Jain HUF 2012 (10) TMI 158. 9. In view of the above the Ld. AR prayed for relief on merit also. 10. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the digital evidence could not be compared with the physical evidence. Hence signature on digital evidence was not one of the requirements in the eyes of law. Shri Gopal Mittal is the husband of one of the sellers of the abovementioned property and hence an interested party in financial matters for and o....