KOMAL DEEP KAMDAR,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(3), RAJKOT

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट �यायपीठ, राजकोट। In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member And Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 744/Rjt/2025 [ �नधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2020-21 ] Komal Deep Kamdar, Income Tax Officer, E-8, Ambika Park, Raiya Road, Vs. Ward 2(2)(3), Rajkot, Gujarat-360001 Income Tax Department, Race Course, Ring Road, Rajkot, Gujarat-360001 �थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AXCPM5672K (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sunny Mehta, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Anadi Dixit, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 10/06/2026 07/09/2026 Date of Pronouncement :

:: ORDER :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2020-21, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAC) Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)’], dated 18.07.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Act, dated 27.03.2025.

ITA No. 744/Rjt/2025 [ AY 2020-21 ] Komal Deep Kamdar v. ITO 2. When the matter was called for hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that appeal has been filed by the assessee belatedly by 37 days. The assessee has moved petition for condonation of delay, requesting the Bench to condone the delay, in filing this appeal. The learned Counsel therefore, adverted our attention to the affidavit filed in this regard citing reasons for condonation of delay and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay 37 days. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that reason for delay in filing this appeal is the communication gap between assessee and his advocate and also assessee, did not check his email ID regularly, hence delay has resulted, which may be condoned in the interest of justice. However, learned DR for the revenue, opposed the prayer of the assessee, for condonation of delay and stated that appeal may be dismissed on account of the delay. We have heard both the parties. A perusal of the affidavit gives us an impression of existence of mitigating circumstances to enable us to exercise our discretion in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the delay is condoned in filing the appeal.

Page 2 of 13

ITA No. 744/Rjt/2025 [ AY 2020-21 ] Komal Deep Kamdar v. ITO 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal against principles of natural justice by not providing the opportunity of cross-examination of the person whose statement was relied upon and who was solely in possession of the material relied upon. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the ground that there is no source produced in relation to the basis of bifurcation of amounts of addition across multiple years. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering that the assessment order is arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Brief facts qua the issue are that this case was transferred from NeFAC Faceless Unit on 22.11.2024 u/s.144B(8) of IT Act, to ITO, Ward 2(1)(1). Thereafter, in consequence of order u/s. 120 of the IT Act 1961 dated 26.12.2024 of the Addl. CIT, Range 2(1), Rajkot, this case was assigned to this Ward, i.e. ITO, Ward 2(2)(3), Rajkot. Upon receipt of case by AO, notice due to change of incumbent were issued. This case was reopened after following due process as the assessee had made ON MONEY transaction for property. Notice u/s.148 and subsequent notices u/s.142(1) issued by Faceless Units. All the notices issued are available in e-filing portal. In response, assessee submitted its reply before the assessing officer. The assessing officer noticed that the assessee had not disclosed the portion of ON MONEY payment to the Department, either in the regular course of filing of return nor in the return in response to notice u/s 148, therefore, based on the details and information available, the show cause notice was issued to the assessee. All the preliminary facts were described in detail in show cause notice. The assessee was briefed with the search action conducted in builder group and details of data found in material seized during the course of search. The assessee was confronted with the 'Modus Oprendi' of recording ON MONEY transactions, which was detected during the course of search. The assessee was confronted with the

Page 3 of 13

ITA No. 744/Rjt/2025 [ AY 2020-21 ] Komal Deep Kamdar v. ITO relevant portion of material seized in search, which is having direct nexus, bearing and tax effect in the case of the assessee. Applying the relevant portion of seized material and method recording ON MONEY transactions, the assessee was confronted with the actual amount of ON MONEY paid by assessee during the financial year relevant to the assessment year. Therefore, assessing officer made addition of Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 69 of the Act.

Page 4 of 13

ITA No. 744/Rjt/2025 [ AY 2020-21 ] Komal Deep Kamdar v. ITO on record. We note that addition was made in the hands of the assessee based on the Excel-Sheet, which was neither signed by the Purchaser nor Seller, and which was undated, therefore, based on such dump document, the addition should not be made in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, we find that the assessee’s case is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Rajkot Bench, in the case of M/s. R. C. Buildcon, in ITA 941/Rjt/2024 and ITA Nos. 3 to 7/Rjt/2025, wherein it was held as follows: “18. We note that the assessee has contended that the addition made by the assessing officer is just based on the excel file data found and seized from the third party. The addition cannot be made without rejecting the audited books of account u/s 145(3) of the Act. We note that no tangible documents, loose papers found during the course of search. So far, the excel sheet is concerned, there is no signature of the assessee as well as authorized partner of M/s Vivan Infraspace LLP. The Assessing Officer one side has observed that perusal of the excel sheet revealed that the assessee- company has not reported entire receipts, as appearing from the seized excel sheet. Matching of entries on the seized excel -sheet found from the third- party with those on the accounting ledger of the assessee and of M/s Titanium Buildcon LLP (developer of the project The City Centre) has no any nexus in the case since the assessee has worked with company, M/s Titanium Buildcon LLP and has no relevance with any document seized in the form of data/transactions recorded in the excel file from third-party. In absence of any instance of transactions being pointed out by the assessing officer, there is nothing for rebuttal by the person receiving such notice from the assessing officer. A person can offer rebuttal with evidence only where the department provides the details of the transactions which they consider to have led to cash receipt by the assessee. Merely comparing the excel sheet found from the third- party with the accounts of assessee- company, will not be an instance to prove that the assessee- company has received cash from the third- party. The well settled legal position is that a non- speaking document without any corroborative material, evidence on record and finding that such document has materialized into transactions giving rise to income of the assessee which had not been disclosed in regular books of account by such assessee, has to disregarded for the purposes of assessments to be framed pursuant to search and seizure action. From the search and seizure perspective, such non speaking seized documents are referred to as "Dump Documents". 19. Therefore, we find that no arbitrary addition to the income of the assessee can be made by the Assessing Officer based on the dump documents, loose papers containing scribbling, rough/vague notings in the absence of any corroborative material, evidence recorded and finding that such dump documents had materialized into transactions giving rise to income of the assessee, which had not been disclosed

Page 5 of 13

ITA No. 744/Rjt/2025 [ AY 2020-21 ] Komal Deep Kamdar v. ITO in regular books of accounts by the assessee. For that reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO [1981] 7 Taxman 13/131 ITR 597 held that the fictional receipt cannot be deemed to be receipt in the absence of any cogent material to support the factum of actual receipt. Moreover, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of CIT vs. D.K. Gupta [2008] 174 Taxman 476 upheld the order of the Tribunal wherein it was held that Ad- hoc/Dumb Documents without any corroborative evidence and finding, that the alleged documents nave materialized into transactions cannot be deemed to be the income of the assessee. The Hon'ble Calcutta Bench of ITAT in case of T.S. Venkatesan v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 74 ITD 298 held that in the absence of corroborative evidence, addition of undisclosed income could not be made simply on the basis of entries on loose papers recovered from the residence of a third- party and certain general statements of said party. Therefore, the well settled legal position is that a non- speaking document referred to as a "Dump Document" without any corroborative material, evidence on record, has to disregarded for the purposes of assessments to be framed u/s 153A and 153C of the Act. The aforementioned legal position also gathers support from the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla 1998 taxmann.com 2155 popularly known as Jain Hawala Case wherein it was held that any presumption of transaction on some vague, tenuous and dubious entries in a sheet of paper is not rational and hence legal unless there is corroboration by corresponding entry in regular accounts of both the parties to the transaction. In this case it was held that entries in Jain Notebooks held on facts admissible under section 34, but file containing loose sheets of papers are not "book" and hence entries therein not admissible under section 34 of the evidence Act. Further it was also held in this case that entries in books of account shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. The above view further gathers reinforcement from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Common Cause v. Union of India [2017] 77 taxmann.com 245/245 Taxman 214/394 ITR 220 popularly known Sahara dairies and Aditya Birla diaries case. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, following the judgment rendered in case of V.C. Shukla (supra), laid down the following principles: (i) Entries in loose papers/sheets are irrelevant and not admissible under section 34 of the Evidence Act. It is only where the entries are in the books of account regularly kept, depending on the nature of occupation, that those are admissible; (ii) As to the value of entries in the books of account, such statement shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability, even if they are relevant and admissible, and that they are only corroborative evidence. Even then independent evidence is necessary as to trustworthiness of those entries which is a requirement to fasten the liability. (iii) The meaning of account book would be spiral notebook/ped but not loose sheets.

Page 6 of 13

ITA No. 744/Rjt/2025 [ AY 2020-21 ] Komal Deep Kamdar v. ITO (iv) Entries in books of account are not by themselves sufficient to charge any person with liability, the reason being that a man cannot be allowed to make evidence for himself by what he chooses to write in his own books behind the back of the parties. There must be independent evidence of the transaction to which the entries relate and in absence of such evidence no relief can be given to the party who relies upon such entries to support his claim against another; (v) Even if books of account are regularly kept in the ordinary course of business, the entries therein shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. It is not enough merely to prove that the books have been regularly kept in the course of business and the entries therein are correct. It is further incumbent upon the person relying upon those entries to prove that they were in accordance with facts; (vi) The Court has to be on guard while ordering investigation against any important Constitutional functionary, officers or any person in the absence of some cogent legally cognizable material. When the material on the basis of which investigation is sought is itself irrelevant to constitute evidence it is not admissible in evidence. 20. We note that apart from excel sheet, no evidence has been found to suggest that the assessee had actually received the said amount. In the absence of any documentary evidence to suggest the same, it could not be presumed that the amounts reflected in the excel sheet were the income of the assessee, received from RK Group. The Assessing Officer has not brought on record any evidence to suggest that RK Group has admitted that the amounts were paid to the assessee- company. Hence, simply rough noting on the excel file, which is not signed by any party, does not mean that the addition could be made in the hands of the assessee- company. Since no evidence was found relating to the existence of any transaction between the assessee- company and R K Group and in the absence of any corroborative evidence to suggest that the assessee- company had actually received the said amount, no addition could be made merely on the basis of noting excel file found during the search proceedings from third party. 21. We find that no tangible documents, any loose papers found during the courses of search, which contains the signature of the assessee as well as authorized partner of M/s Titanium Buildcon LLP. In Pankaj Dahyabhai Patel (HUF) Vs. ACIT (1999) 63 TT) (Ahm) 790-where papers were not seized from house of the assessee nor was in his handwriting, of the assessee, the inference of on-money receipt based on such paper was not justified. Additions based on loose papers without corroborative evidence, it was held, by Tribunal, to be not sustainable. Neither evidence to link the seized documents found in the premises of third party, that is, R K Group during the course of search, then the presumption u/s 132(4A) of the Act not applicable. The action of the Assessing Officer in making addition based on the searched person`s excel -sheet data, recording of third party, that the same belongs to the assessee, is incorrect, as the same would be clearly impermissible, as the seized

Page 7 of 13

ITA No. 744/Rjt/2025 [ AY 2020-21 ] Komal Deep Kamdar v. ITO data, admittedly, had no nexus with the assessee and there is no signature of assessee or third-party, on such excel sheet. In the case of Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar [1974] 97 ITR 696 (Bom), the addition was made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of the entries in the books of third persons. Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that such addition could not be made only on the basis of the notings in the books of third persons. The entire addition revolving to the excel sheet found and seized from the third- party which is "dump documents" which has no legality in the eyes of the law and the addition exclusively based on such documents needs to be deleted. 22. We note that assessee’s issue under consideration is also covered by the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of PCIT vs. Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia R/Tax Appeal No. 20 of 2024 order dated 06.03.2024, while passing the order the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has made the following observations: “1. Having noted the findings of the facts returned by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ('CITA', in brief) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT', herein after), we may record that, essentially, the proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'IT Act of 1961') were initiated against the Respondent- assessee on the basis of an excel sheet found from the computer of a person, associated with the Company, namely Navratna Organizers and Developers Private Limited (in short as "the Developer'), in the premises of whom the search was conducted. 2. The excel sheet, according to the learned Counsel for the Revenue, contained the details of payment made by the assessee to the developer, with respect to which tax had been paid by the developer before the Settlement Commissioner. The findings returned by the CITA and ITAT on the issue is sought to be assailed on the ground that the payment of tax by the developer, in whose premises search was conducted, before the Settlement Commissioner, with respect to the amount entered in the excel sheet found from the possession of the assistant working with the developer, is sufficient proof of the transaction between the assessee and the developer. 3. We find Inherent fallacy in this submission, inasmuch as, there is no basis for conducting proceedings against the assessee merely for the fact that the developer had paid tax on the amount shown in the excel-sheet There is no adjudication with regard to the payment, which was shown in the excel- sheet to the effect that the same was actually paid by the assessee to the developer. Even otherwise, the concurrent findings written by the CITA and ITAT are that the document found from the premises of the third party namely excel-sheet, which is the basis the proceedings was without any signature and there is no corroborative material to substantia the said document. The nature of the document has not been explained by the Assessing Officer while proceeding against the assessee. The statements of the persons recorded during search with reference to the alleged, seized material, was not provided

Page 8 of 13

ITA No. 744/Rjt/2025 [ AY 2020-21 ] Komal Deep Kamdar v. ITO to the assessee and hence, the entire proceedings under Section 153C of the IT Act of 1961 stood vitiated. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not successfully demolish the facts, which ai recorded concurrently by the CITA and ITAT. 5. No question of law much less any substantial question of law arises to entertain this appeal. The same is accordingly, dismissed.” 23. The issue is also covered by the judgement of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Rajkot, in the case of Sidique Ibrahim Allana, in ITA No.73/RJT/2025, wherein it was held as follows: “Analysis and Conclusion: 18. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We note that assessing officer initiated the reassessment proceedings against the assessee, with the approval of Principal Commissioner that the books of accounts or documents, seized or requisitioned under section 132 of the Act, in case of Shri Mansur Mehta Group, pertains or relates to the assessee under consideration. Therefore, we note that there was no search on the assessee. We find that the figure mentioned in the WhatsApp chat at 550/-, has been interpreted by the Assessing Officer by adding five zeros, as if, it is at Rs. 5,50,00,000/- without any basis. We find that what is the basis, to add five more zeros, has not been explained by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order. As per learned DR for the revenue, the assessing officer added five zero, after the figure at 550/-, by applying common sense, is not acceptable. The addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO), is based purely on his own assumption, such as arbitrarily adding five zeroes to Rs. 550/- , found in a WhatsApp chat, is not legally sustainable, in the eyes of law, as, it is not corroborated by any further evidence. Such five zeroes were not even corroborated by a clear statement taken during the search proceedings. Neither the assessee stated nor the third-party stated, in his statement that five zeroes to Rs. 550/- may be added. 19. We note that the addition made by the assessing officer, must be based on concrete evidence and not on mere suspicion, conjecture, or assumptions. No addition can be made on the basis of assumptions and presumptions without corroborative evidence. A WhatsApp chat showing a reference to Rs. 550/- alone does not prove that the assessee, made investment in India of Rs. 550 x 100,000 (that is, Rs.5,50,00,000). The evidentiary value of a WhatsApp message must be corroborated with supporting evidence such as bank statements, ledger entries, cash flow statement, or statements from the sender/receiver etc. Any arbitrary enhancement in the figure of WhatsApp

Page 9 of 13

ITA No. 744/Rjt/2025 [ AY 2020-21 ] Komal Deep Kamdar v. ITO chat, by the assessing officer (like adding 5 zeroes) without giving the assessee a chance to rebut would violate the principles of natural justice, also. If the assessing officer wants to treat the figure at 550/- equivalent to Rs.5,50,00,000/-, by his own assumption and presumption, then in that circumstances, the onus is on the assessing officer to prove that the amount of Rs.5,50,00,000/-, is the investment made by the assessee in any movable and immovable property, in India, which he has failed to prove with corroborative evidence. That is, the assessing officer must prove that the Rs. 550 refers to undisclosed investment of assessee, and if claiming it is Rs. 5,50,00,000/-, then assessing officer must produce valid evidence before the assessee, for his rebuttal, which the assessing officer has failed to do so. Thus, addition of 5 zeroes to Rs. 550 is based purely on assumption by the Assessing Officer, which is unjustified, and therefore, needs to be deleted. 20. We also note that ld. DRP mentioned in its order that figure of 550/-, is apparently at Rs.550 lakhs, which is again without any base. The learned DRP did not mention that how the figure of 550/- is apparently at Rs.550 lakhs. By following arbitrary method, the said figure, could be apparently be presumed at Rs.5500 lakhs or Rs.55,000/- lakhs also. Thus, the findings of the Ld DRP, is also based on surmise and conjuncture, so far adding five zeroes are concerned. 21. We also note that the provision of Section 132(4A) and Section 292C of the Act creates deeming fiction on the assessee subjected to search or survey, wherein it may be presumed that any such document found during the course of search / survey from the possession or control of person searched / surveyed belongs to such person and contents of such documents are true. However, in the assessee`s case under consideration, it is an undisputed fact that the impugned loose papers- WhatsApp chat, was not found from the possession of assessee, but the same was found from the possession of third party. Therefore, noting made in such loose papers do not present a preponderance of probabilities, so as to support the allegation of unexplained investment. It is well settled position of law that a non-speaking document referred to as a “Dump Document” without any corroborative material or evidence on record has to disregarded for the purposes of assessments to be framed under the Income Tax Act. This view gathers support from the landmark judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CBI v. V. C. Shukla 1998 taxmann.com 2155 (SC) popularly, known as Jain Hawala Case, wherein it was held that any presumption of transaction on some vague, tenuous and dubious entries in a sheet of paper, is not rational and hence legal, unless there is corroboration by corresponding entry in regular accounts of both the parties to the transaction. In this case it was held that entries in Jain Notebooks held on facts admissible under Section 34 of Evidence Act, but file containing loose sheets of papers are not “book” and hence entries therein not admissible under Section 34 of Evidence Act. Further it was also held in this case that entries in books of

Page 10 of 13

ITA No. 744/Rjt/2025 [ AY 2020-21 ] Komal Deep Kamdar v. ITO account shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. Entries even if relevant are only corroborative evidence. Independent evidence as to trustworthiness of those entries is necessary to fasten the liability. In view of these facts, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that entries made in the Jain Hawala diaries are under Section 34 of the Evidence Act, but truthfulness thereof not proved by any independent evidence. It was also held in this case that “books” ordinarily mean a collection of sheets of paper or other material, blank, written, printed, fastened or bound together so as to form a material whole. Loose sheets or scraps of paper cannot be termed as “book” for they can be easily detached and replaced. The Supreme Court further went on to state that even correct and authentic entries in books of account cannot without independent evidence of their trustworthiness fix a liability upon a person. 22.The above view further gathers reinforcement from another recent and landmark judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Common Cause v. UOI [2017] 77 taxmann.com 245 popularly known Sahara dairies and Aditya Birla diaries case. In view of the above rulings laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, we find that the figure 550/- reflected in the WhatsApp chat, is without any head or tail and such figure does not consist complete breakup of transactions and hence, no adverse inference could have been drawn solely on the basis of such WhatsApp chat. We also place reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC), wherein, it is held that the fictional receipt cannot be deemed to be a receipt in the absence of any cogent material to support the factum of actual receipt. 23. Our view is further fortified by the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case of CIT v. D.K. Gupta [2008] 174 Taxman 476 (Delhi), wherein, Hon’ble High Court had upheld the order of the lower court (ITAT), wherein, it was held that Ad-Hoc / Dumb Documents without any corroborative evidence/finding that the alleged documents have materialized into transactions cannot be deemed to be the income of the assessee. We also find that Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai, in case of Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) v. ACIT [2003] 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) (TM) held that any noting in the loose sheet is no evidence by itself. An entry in the books of account maintained in the regular course of business is relevant for purposes of considering the nature and impact of a transaction, but notings on slips of paper or loose sheets of paper cannot fall in this category. Thus, we find that in assessee`s case under consideration, the basis for addition is only WhatsApp chat. The WhatsApp chats are unsigned documents. The Assessing Officer has not established nexus between the WhatsApp chat with actual investment in India by the assessee, if any. Such WhatsApp chat, seized during the course of search, is a dumb document having no evidentiary value, hence no addition can be made, in the hands of the assessee, in the absence of corroborative material. In the instant case, undoubtedly no statement from

Page 11 of 13

ITA No. 744/Rjt/2025 [ AY 2020-21 ] Komal Deep Kamdar v. ITO the parties whose names found in the WhatsApp chat, has been brought to the notice and as such entire addition in the hands of the assessee, on the basis of uncorroborated, WhatsApp chat, in the loose paper form, is not possible. 24. Besides, the assessee under consideration, is a non-resident, therefore no any income has accrued or arisen in India, by way of WhatsApp chat, which contains figure at 550/-.The assessee stated that he lived in the UAE, since 1995, and as per section 5(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an income of a non-resident, is not taxable, if such income, is not received or accrued or arised in India. Since, assessee had no income that is received or accrued or arose in India, hence he is not liable for payment of any taxes in India. Besides, no any investment was made by the assessee, in India, which is mentioned in the WhatsApp chat at Rs.550/-. At the cost of repetition, the provisions of section 5(2) of the Act, is reproduced below:.

“(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the total income of any previous year of a person, who is a non-resident, includes all income from whatever source derived which- (a) is received or is deemed to be received in India in such year by or on behalf of such person or (b) accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise to him in India during such year.”

The assessee submitted, a copy of his passport, before the assessing officer, to demonstrate that he was non-resident in India, therefore, we note that since, the assessee is a non-resident in India, therefore, he is not liable to tax in India, on the basis of WhatsApp chat, which contains the figure at 550/-, as the said amount has neither accrued in India nor arisen in India. In addition to this, figure in WhatsApp chat, is an arbitrary figure, without any corroborative evidence, therefore, it is not a real income of the assessee. Under the Income Tax Act, only real income is to be taxed, not the imaginary figure or arbitrary figure, which does not have any support with corroborative evidence. Therefore, in absence of any external evidence, addition cannot be resorted to only on the basis of WhatsApp chat. The department had not brought on record any evidence to prove conclusively that the WhatsApp chat contained details of secreted profits which were chargeable to tax in India. Hence, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the Assessing Officer/ DRP in any manner and hence the addition so made is deleted. Hence ground No.3 raised by the assessee, on merit, is allowed.”

Page 12 of 13

ITA No. 744/Rjt/2025 [ AY 2020-21 ] Komal Deep Kamdar v. ITO 24. Based on these facts and circumstances, we delete the addition made by the assessing officer and dismiss the appeal of the revenue and allow the appeals of the different assessees, based on same facts and circumstances”.

Order is pronounced in the open Court on 07/09/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Shri Sonjoy Sarma] [Dr. Arjun Lal Saini] �याियक सद�य/Judicial Member S लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member //True Copy// राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/Date: 07 /09/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The assessee 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By order

Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Rajkot

Page 13 of 13