RAJ KUMAR KOTHARI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC-4(3), KOLKATA

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)].
2. 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.
3. 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 2
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).
5. 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.
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

3
Raj Kumar Kothari wherein it has been held that no addition is sustainable based on SMS or Whatsapp messages without corroborative material.
7. The Ld. DR on the other hand, relied on the order of authorities below.
8. 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/-.
9. 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.
10. 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

4
Raj Kumar Kothari

Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. Pr. CIT
4. CIT(A)

////
By order