IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘C’: NEW DELHI.

BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2021-22)

Arti Garg, vs. DCIT, Central Circle 31, A – 19, Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Delhi.

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092.

(PAN : AKUPG4398A) ITA No.3144/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2021-22)

Naresh Arora, vs. DCIT, Central Circle 31, A-061, 6^th Floor, Spaze Privy, Delhi.

Sector 72, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana).

(PAN : AACPA3657P)

(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

ASSESSEE BY : Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, Advocate Shri Vaibhav Srivastava, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date of Order : 14.01.2026

O R D E R

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1. The assessees. Arti Garg and Naresh Arora, have preferred appeals against the different order dated 24.03.2025 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ld. CIT (A)) for the Assessment Year 2021-22.

2. The appeals were heard together as they have common set of facts and background involving common questions of law. For all purposes, the facts and figures wherever relevant including relevant part of the impugned orders in the case of Arti Garg shall be narrated and the findings shall squarely apply to the case of Naresh Arora also.

3. The cases having their background, sale of a property identifiable as Property No.52, Shankar Vihar, New Delhi which has been sold by Naresh Arora and purchased by Arti Garg vide sale deed dated 30.12.2020. Naresh Arora declared long term capital gain of Rs.2 crores in the return filed on 25.12.2021 while Arti Garg in the return filed had declared income of Rs.9,30,880/-. The Department’s case is that a search was conducted on one Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, property dealer which led to recovery of electronic evidences in the form of digital image of slip allegedly showing consideration of Rs.5.50 crores instead of Rs.3.5 crores for which there is allegation that Rs.2 crores were paid in cash. The Department relied on the admission of Arti Garg which was retracted on 31.08.2021. An addition of Rs.2 crores was made by the AO on alleged cash component of Rs.5.5 crores under section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) on alleged 1% commission income in the hands of Naresh Arora and Rs.2 crores in the hands of Arti Garg u/s 69 of the Act alleging that an amount of Rs.2 crores was paid in cash over and above Rs.3.5 crores which was paid by banking channels for purchase of property under consideration.

4. Now what bone of contention between parties is that, whether based on inadmissible evidence in the form of digital image reproduced in the assessment orders and allegedly found in the whatsApp of third party broker, Pravin Jain has been relied and the same did not deserve to be relied in the absence of compliance of law relating to collection and admission of electronic evidences and especially in the absence of certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 certificate and for which reliance has been placed by ld. Counsel for the assessee on following decisions :-‘

(i) Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473;

(ii) Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1;

(iii) Vetrivel Minerals v. ACIT (2021) 129 taman.com 126 (Mad.);

(iv) Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur v. DCIT, CC-1 – ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench, in ITA Nos.172-180/Viz/2023 (order dated 18.08.2023);

(v) ACIT v. Anan Jaikumar Jain (2023) 147 taxman.com 125 (Mumbai-Trib.);

(vi) M/s. Asma Estates & Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, ITAT, Hyderabad in ITA No.782/Hyd/2020;

(vii) PCIT v. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (2021) 133 taxmann.com

289 (SC);

(viii) CIT v. Raj Pal Bhatia (2011) 333 ITR 315 (Delhi);

(ix) Murari Lal v. State of M.P. (1980) 1 SCC 704;

(x) Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (2015) 62 taxmann.com

3 (SC);

(xi) Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC);

(xii) CIT v. Anil Khandelwal [ITA Nos.247 & 2