The Tribunal held that assessments made on the basis of illegible or inadequately certified electronic evidence are unsustainable in law, requiring strict compliance with evidentiary standards.

ORDER

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 17.05.2023 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in Appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-24/10453/2016-17 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 31.12.2022 passed u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the ACIT, Central Circle-8, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).

2. Heard and perused the record.

2.1 The background necessary for adjudication of the appeal in hand are that the Appellant is a regular income tax assessee, assessed. During the year under consideration, the Appellant filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Acton 18.03.2017, declaring taxable income of Rs. 3,00,000/-. During the year under consideration, the Appellant along with her mother acquired a property situated at B-376, B Block, 2nd Floor, Sushant Lok - I, Gurugram. Haryana - 122001 from Ms. Sudha Malik through her GPA holder Sh. Anil Narang for an agreed sales consideration of Rs. 61,50,000/-. The share of the Appellant in the said property was 50%, while the balance 50% was acquired by her mother, accordingly, the Appellant paid 50% of the agreed consideration of Rs.30,75,000/- after deducting the appropriate TDS. The amount of sales consideration was paid by the Appellant from her own disclosed sources and completely through bank account.

2.2 On 03.01.2018, a search and seizure operation were carried u/s 132 of the Act in the case of Navneet Dawar and others, which also covered the premises of Sh. Anil Narang. During the search, certain photo/image was seized from the phone of Sh. Anil Narang, marked as Annexure A1 (Exihibit-1 to the statement of Sh. Anil Narang) allegedly belonging to/pertaining to the Appellant. The alleged seized material is placed at page 26 of the paper-book. Relying on the seized material the assessment under section 153C of the Act was completed by making an addition of Rs. 1,05,50,000/- under section 69B of the Act, alleging unexplained investment made by the Appellant in cash for acquiring the Shushant Lok Property from Sh. Anil Narang.

2.3 The said assessment was challenged before the Ld. CIT(A), who had dismissed the appeal of the Appellant. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), sustaining the addition of Rs.1,05,50,000/-, the appeal is filed before this Tribunal through various grounds of appeal.

3. Ld. Counsel of assessee has primarily submitted that alleged seized material clearly shows that it is not legible. A photocopy of the same was confronted to the Appellant during the course of post search proceedings and her statement was recorded under section 131(1A) on 02.05.2018 i.e., after 4 months from the date of the search. In Q. No. 8 to her statement, the relevant tax authority explained the content of the said photo to the Appellant and asked for her confirmation. While answering to the said question the Appellant denied commenting upon the same, as it was recovered/seized from the mobile phone of Mr. Anil Narang, who would have been in a better position to explain the same. The relevant extract of the statement of Appellant recorded under section 131(1A):

“Q.8 I am showing you a print out of extraction taken from mobile phone of Sh. Anil Narang as Exhibit-I wherein it has been mentioned that the total cost of property B-376, B-Block, 2nd Floor, Sushant Lok-1, Gurugram, Haryana-122001 is Rs. 1.67 crore out of which Rs. 1.23 crore has already been paid and remaining amount of Rs. 43.50 lakh is balance and Rs.23.50 lakhs have