2025 (7) TMI 1040 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s. 69A r.w.s.115BBE - assessee s undisclosed investment - whatsapp communication between the assessee and a third party - HELD THAT - The findings of the AO are totally bereft of the legal provisions as what is important to determine is firstly there has to be either physical cash/deposits to be found or material documentation which clearly demonstrate that the assessee is the owner of said money and has paid a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs in cash to Mr. Zarir Bativala. In the present case as we noted earlier there is no iota of any evidence/documentation which demonstrate the assessee entered into any cash transaction in respect of purchase of immoveable property from Mr. Zarir Bativala. In fact there is a clear denial by Mr. Zarir Bativala and in spite of such denial the AO without brining any further evidence on record has gone ahead and brought the amount to tax. AO has not disputed the fact that the transaction happened towards purchase of property on 1st July 2011. Even on that account there is no basis for invocation of provisions of section 69A in the impugned assessment year 2022-23. Thus without bringing on record any material evidences to demonstrate that assessee is the owner of the amount of Rs. 50 lakhs merely basis on whatsapp communication between the assessee and a third party who is not a party to the original transaction which was entered into way back in the year 2011 there is no basis to bring the amount to tax in the hands of the assessee. In the result the addition so made is directed to be deleted. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Summary

ISSUES:

• Whether addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act is justified on the basis of a WhatsApp message indicating an off-book payment related to immovable property transaction for the relevant assessment year.
• Whether initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Income Tax Act without recording proper satisfaction is valid.
• Whether the alleged undisclosed investment pertains to the relevant assessment year given the original property transaction occurred in an earlier financial year.
• Whether the provisions of section 69A apply in absence of physical cash, bullion, jewellery, or other valuable articles found in possession or ownership of the assessee during the relevant financial year.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

• Regarding the addition under section 69A, the Court held that "there is no physical cash which has been found and the ownership of which, can be attributed to the assessee," and that "merely basis on whatsapp communication ... there is no basis to bring the amount to tax in the hands of the assessee." Therefore, the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- was deleted.
• On the issue of penalty under section 270A, the Court noted the assessee's ground but did not expressly rule on this point in the judgment provided.
• The Court found that the original transaction for purchase of the property occurred in FY 2011-12, and payments were made during that year through banking channels; hence, the addition for AY 2022-23 based on a WhatsApp message dated 30-08-2021 was not sustainable.
• The Court emphasized that section 69A applies only when "the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money ... is not recorded in the books of account," which was not established in this case.

RATIONALE:

• The Court applied the statutory framework of section 69A of the Income Tax Act, which requires that the assessee be found to be the owner of unaccounted money or valuables during the relevant financial year, and that the explanation offered by the assessee be examined for reasonableness.
• The Court relied on the absence of any physical cash, bank transactions, or corroborative documentary evidence to establish ownership of the alleged Rs. 50 lakhs during the relevant year.
• The Court considered the context of the WhatsApp message as a negotiation tactic and not an admission of undisclosed income, supported by the original developer's categorical denial of any cash transaction.
• The Court noted that the Assessing Officer failed to discharge the initial onus of proving ownership of unrecorded money and did not adequately consider the evidence and explanations provided by the assessee and the developer.
• The Court referenced established principles regarding circumstantial evidence and human probabilities but found that the Assessing Officer's reliance solely on a WhatsApp message without further evidence was insufficient.
• No dissent or doctrinal shift was indicated; the decision reaffirmed the necessity of tangible evidence to invoke section 69A and the importance of linking the alleged undisclosed income to the correct assessment year.