Loading judgment…
Facts
The AO made two additions: Rs. 5,00,000/- based on WhatsApp chats, and Rs. 25 lacs (Rs. 20 lacs by RTGS, Rs. 5 lacs by cheque) based on documents found. The assessee argued that the WhatsApp amount belonged to another person and the RTGS/cheque transactions were not substantiated and did not appear in the bank account.
Held
The Tribunal held that the addition based on WhatsApp chats was not sustainable without corroborative material, following previous High Court and Tribunal decisions. Similarly, the additions for RTGS and cheque payments were found to be without basis, as the assessee denied the transactions and they were not reflected in the bank account.
Key Issues
Whether additions based solely on WhatsApp chats and unsubstantiated bank transfer documents are valid without corroborative evidence.
Sections Cited
250, 69A, 131, 132(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,KOLKATA
Appearances by: Assessee represented by : S.M. Surana, AR Department represented by : Monalisa Pal Mukherjee, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 17.12.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 19.12.2025 O R D E R The present appeal filed by the assessee arises from order dated 27.09.2024passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Kolkata -27 [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)].
The issue is Ground No. 1 is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition as made by the AO in respect of unexplained cash payments u/s 69A of the Act by treating the same as unexplained money by the AO.
The facts in brief are that the AO made two additions. One of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the basis of Whatsapp chats recovered from the mobile of Raj Kumar Kothari the assessee showing that unexplained unaccounted transactions made by the assessee during financial year 2021-22. The AO also extracted the screen shot of the Whatsapp. During the course of search and seizure action of the assessee on 01.12.2022 statement of the assessee was recorded in which no satisfactory response was recorded. Thereafter, statement was recorded u/s 131 on 23.02.2023 in which the assessee replied as under:
“Picture 2: As I already stated that the whatsapp chat is made with Rajnath of Anvil Group. I handed over cash Rs. 5 lakh, which is denoted by Rs. 5/- in the chat of Mr. Rajnath, which belongs to him.” 4. It is clear from the above that the assessee stated that the Whatsapp chat was with Mr. Rajnath of Anvil group and the Rs. 5,00,000/- of cash belonged to the said person. However, the AO added the same in the hands of the assessee which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).
The Ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that Rs. 5,00,000/- was received from Mr. Rajnath of Anvil group which was clarified in the statement recorded u/s 132(4)131 of the Act. The assessee stated that the cash was handed over to Rs. 5,00,000/- which was the matter of discussion of Whatsapp chat of Mr. Rajnath Anvil and in fact belonged to him. The Ld. AR stated that the no enquiry was made from the said person and no other corroborative documents were brought on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the addition made on the basis of said Whatsapp chat is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of A2Z Intracervica Ltd. Vs. Quippo Infrastructure Ltd., dated 14.07.2021in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:
"What is evidential value of WhatsApp messages these days? Anything can be created and deleted on social media these days. We don't attach any value to the WhatsApp messages, " 6. Similarly, the assessee relied on the decision of coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in thecae of Atul Tantia Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 492/Kol/2021
The Ld. DR on the other hand, relied on the order of authorities below.
After considering the rival contentions and perusing the material on record including the decision cited before us we observe that the addition was only made on the basis of whatsapp chat without bringing any material on record. We have also perused the decisions cited before us. We observe that the case of the assessee is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid decisions. Consequently, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
The second issue raised by the assessee is the addition made by the AO on the basis of documents found from the assessee a copy of which is available in appeal folder. The said documents contained the details of the payments by RTGS Rs. 20 lacs and by cheque Rs. 5 lacs aggregating to Rs. 25 lacs. The AO added the said amount on the ground that the assessee never substantiated the payments appearing in the said documents and accordingly, we treated them as unexplained transactions added to the income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the same.
After hearing the rival contention and perusing the material on record, we find that AO added the amount on the basis of documents found on which it was mentioned that Rs. 20 lacs by RTGS and Rs. 5,00,000/- by cheque. However, the assessee denied such transactions to ever have been made or entered into and these are not appearing in the bank account of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee submissions are that these transaction are belonging to him by relying on the decision of CIT Vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram Appeal (Civil) 4262 of 2007, dated Raj Kumar Kothari 14.09.2007. Therefore, considering the above facts, we are of the view that the additions made are without any basis. Accordingly, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition.
In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 19.12.2025