DCIT Vs Deepankar Jain (ITAT Chandigarh)
During search at assessee’s premises (24.11.2022), AO relied on a WhatsApp chat between assessee & one Mr. Manish in Dubai, where Manish asked whether he should give USD 1.5 lakh (₹1.12 Cr) to “Hemant Sir”. Assessee replied “OK”. AO treated this as unexplained investment u/s 69, holding that the amount represented assessee’s funds routed abroad.
CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding WhatsApp messages have no evidentiary value unless corroborated, & assessee had filed affidavit of Mr. Manish confirming no money was transferred, passport showing assessee was in India, bank statements of Dubai entity (HL Exports DMCC) showing no such transaction.
Cross-Objections on Legal Validity
Assessee raised legal grounds that:
- AY 2022-23 being within 3 years preceding search year, assessment had to be framed under new regime u/s 148 & 148B, not u/s 143(3).
- Mandatory prior approval u/s 148B was absent; instead, AO only obtained approval u/s 143(3) relying on CBDT Circular 15.07.2022.
- Following ITAT Chandigarh decision in Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (ITA 880/Chd/2024, order 17.07.2025), such assessments are invalid.
Tribunal held that framing assessment u/s 143(3) without 148B approval was a jurisdictional defect, quashed the assessment, but still adjudicated merits.
Tribunal’s Findings on Merits
- No corroborative evidence was found during search to prove receipt or utilization of USD 1.5 lakh.
- Affidavit & identity of Mr. Manish confirming non-receipt of funds remained unchallenged.
- Passport showed assessee was in India at relevant time; entity HL Exports DMCC was non-operational.
- WhatsApp chat, without any supporting trail of money, cannot constitute evidence. Reliance placed on ITAT Kolkata in Atul Tantia vs. DCIT (ITA 492/Kol/2021, 28.03.2023) & ITAT Vizag in ACIT vs. Machukonda Shyam (ITA 87A/Viz/2020, 23.09.2020).
Tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s deletion of addition of ₹1.12 Cr u/s 69.
