Assessment Can Whatsapp Messages be Considered as Conclusive Evidence to Make an Addition to Income?

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers Income Tax--Assessment Can Whatsapp Messages be Considered as Conclusive Evidence to Make an Addition to Income? Akhilesh Kumar Sah Even in the electronic era, the technology based messages cannot be taken as a base for making additions to the income of assessee without any concrete proof. 1. Introduction The Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473 decided on 18-9-2014, has held that an electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are satisfied. The Delhi High Court in Ishita Varshney Jain v. ACIT (W.P.(C) 15477/2024 & CM Appl No 68370 of 2024) decided on 22-11-2024, held it appeared that AO had, based on the image of the Agreement to Sell sent on Whatsapp, assumed the value of one floor of the property and based on this assumption, AO was seeking to impute that said value in a separate transaction involving the petitioner. The Delhi High Court observed that the only question to be addressed was, whether any asset, bullion, jewellery, books of account, documents found during search, either belonged to the petitioner or contained information pertaining to the petitioner. The fact that the image suggested a value of a particular property, in respect of a transaction between two other parties, cannot be stated to be pertaining to the petitioner. 2. Analysis SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers

Income Tax--Assessment

Can Whatsapp Messages be Considered as Conclusive Evidence to Make an Addition to Income?

Akhilesh Kumar Sah

Even in the electronic era, the technology based messages cannot be taken as a base for making additions to the income of assessee without any concrete proof.

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473 decided on 18-9-2014, has held that an electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are satisfied.

The Delhi High Court in Ishita Varshney Jain v. ACIT (W.P.(C) 15477/2024 & CM Appl No 68370 of 2024) decided on 22-11-2024, held it appeared that AO had, based on the image of the Agreement to Sell sent on Whatsapp, assumed the value of one floor of the property and based on this assumption, AO was seeking to impute that said value in a separate transaction involving the petitioner. The Delhi High Court observed that the only question to be addressed was, whether any asset, bullion, jewellery, books of account, documents found during search, either belonged to the petitioner or contained information pertaining to the petitioner. The fact that the image suggested a value of a particular property, in respect of a transaction between two other parties, cannot be stated to be pertaining to the petitioner.

2. Analysis