What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the text message could not be treated as a dumb document as the assessee admitted it contained a business transaction. Despite repeated opportunities, the assessee failed to provide any explanation or cooperation.

During a search, a text message on the assessee's mobile referred to 'ten rupees note and 25 kg'. The Assessing Officer treated this as Rs. 25 lakh and made an addition. The assessee claimed no corroborating evidence was produced by the revenue.

What were the issues?

Whether a text message found during a search, without further corroboration, can form the basis of an addition to income, especially when the assessee fails to provide an explanation.

Vijay Soni, Guwahati vs ACIT | ITAT Guwahati 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GAUHATI BENCH

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri S. P. Bhati, FCA

For Respondent: Shri Santosh Kr. Karnani, Addl. CIT

Hearing: 27.04.2025Pronounced: 27.04.2025

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GAUHATI BENCH VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.421/Gau/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24

Vijay Soni ACIT, Central Circle-2, Guwahati Ground Floor, Taslim Market, Vs H. B. Road, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati, Assam-781001. (PAN: EXOPS9845G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri S. P. Bhati, FCA Revenue by : Shri Santosh Kr. Karnani, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 27.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27.04.2025

ORDER Per George Mathan, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), Central NER, Guwahati [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.CIT(A) Central NER, Guwahati/10014/2022-23 dated 10.09.2025.

Shri S. P. Bhati, FCA, represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Santhosh Kr. Karnani, Addl. CIT represented on behalf of the revenue.

ITA No.421/Gau/2025 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that there was a search on the premises of the assessee on 08.06.2023. The assessee is in the business of jewellery. It was the submission that in the course of search, from the mobile of the assessee a message was found referring to some ten rupees note and 25 kg. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer treated the said message as Rs.25 lakh and made the addition. It was the submission that no corroborating evidences have been produced by the revenue. It was the submission that the addition is liable to be deleted.

In reply, the ld. CIT-DR drew our attention to pages 3, 4 & 5 of the assessment order which is a copy of show-cause notice and also the screenshots of the messages. It was the submission that in the course of search, the assessee has confirmed that the text message contains business transaction. It was the submission that the assessee has agreed to give the details of the transaction later but absolutely no cooperation has come from the assessee and no explanation has been offered. It was the submission that even before the ld. CIT(A), nothing has been produced to explain the transaction which has been found in the course of search from the mobile in the form of text message. It was the submission that the addition as made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be upheld.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that the text message refers to a similar

ITA No.421/Gau/2025 nature of hawala transaction. Rs.10 note number is there. 25kg is being referred to is whether 25kg gold or 25 lakh has not been examined by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has taken a reasonable stand that 25 kg represents 25 lakh. The said evidences of text message cannot be treated as dumb documents in so far as the assessee in the course of search has given a statement that the text message contains business transaction, therefore, the assessee was very well aware of the transaction. The assessee after being granted repeated opportunities has decided not to cooperate nor giving explanation. Without any explanation obviously the Assessing Officer would be handicapped. Even before the ld. CIT(A) though substantial opportunities have been given, the assessee has not provided any details, the ld. CIT(A) also referred the same in paras 6.11 and 6.12 of his order. The assessee is unable to give any explanation even before us as to what the transaction refers to. The assessee is also unable to show that the transaction has been recorded in the books of account. The assessee has now made a plea that the transaction has not taken place. If the transaction has not taken place, there should be some correspondences in regard to the failure of the transaction which have been not been produced. This being so, the assessee has not been able to explain the transaction, we are of the view that the addition as made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is on right footing and does not call for any interference.

ITA No.421/Gau/2025

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27/04/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Laxmi Prasad Sahu] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member Dated: 27/04/2026 RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches

VIJAY SONI,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments