AO took a reasonable stand that 25 kg written in WhatsApp chat was 25 lakh – ITAT

Assessing Officer had taken a reasonable stand that 25 kg written in WhatsApp chat/text message was 25 lakh – ITAT

In a recent judgment, ITAT has held that the Assessing Officer had taken a reasonable stand that 25 kg written in text message/chat represented 25 lakh and the text message cannot be treated a dumb documents in so far as the assessee in the course of search had given a statement that the text message contains business transaction.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
5130 (2026) (04) abacus.in ITAT

There was a search on the premises of the appellant assessee. The assessee was in the business of jewellery. During the course of search, from the mobile of the assessee a message was found referring to some ten rupees note and 25 kg. The Assessing Officer treated the said message as Rs. 25 lakh and made the addition.

The contention of the assessee was that no corroborating evidences had been produced by the revenue and therefore the addition be deleted.

On the other hand the Revenue submitted that in the course of search, the assessee had confirmed that the text message contained business transaction. That the assessee had agreed to give the details of the transaction later but absolutely no cooperation has come from the assessee and no explanation had been offered.

The Tribunal noted that the text message referred to a common nature of hawala transaction and Rs.10 note number was there. The text 25kg was being referred to that whether it was 25kg gold or 25 lakh had not been examined by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal opined that the Assessing Officer had taken a reasonable stand that 25 kg represented 25 lakh. The said evidences of text message could not be treated as dumb documents in so far as the assessee in the course of search had given a statement that the text message contained business transaction, therefore, the assessee was very well aware of the transaction.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee after being granted repeated opportunities had decided not to cooperate nor giving explanation. Without any explanation obviously the Assessing Officer would be handicapped. Even before the CIT(A) though substantial opportunities had been given, the assessee had not provided any details.

The Tribunal further observed that the assessee was unable to give any explanation even before it as to what the transaction referred to. The assessee was also unable to show that the transaction had been recorded in the books of account. The assessee rather made a plea that the transaction had not taken place. If the transaction had not taken place, there should be some correspondences in regard to the failure of the transaction which had been not been produced.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not been able to explain the transaction and the addition as made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was on right footing and did not call for any interference.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Penalty u/s 271B for unfilled column 40 in Tax Audit Report Form 3CD deleted by ITAT
• Merely ex-parte rectifying computation without amending assessment order not make it nullity- ITAT
• Once assessee discharges primary onus, it shifts to AO to bring evidence to contrary – ITAT
• Cost Inflation Index for FY/Tax Year 2026-27 notified by CBDT. See Up-to-date Table of CII
• Power of CIT(A) u/s 251(1)(a) to remand case can be exercised only in best judgment assessment