Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

• Digital Forensic Report( Given by Forensic Examiner) containing details of hash value and the details of all mahazar drawn to open the digital evidence at various times to gather further evidences should be included as an annexure to the assessment order. If the chain of custody form is present, the same can be annexed to the assessment order. This will establish the integrity of the data before any court of law.

• The Key digital evidences retrieved if deleted along with the description of the same, in case of business application software, a note on how the business application software is and the technical details of all critical components. • Whether these digital evidences have been confronted to the assessee under any section of the law? The relevant portions of the statement under various sections of Income Tax Act should be included in the order.

15. More particularly with regard to phones of Pankaj Kumar Jain Iphone XS mentioned in the certificate MD5 hash value and SHA1 hash value have been reproduced but even IMEI of the device is not mentioned.

16. There is nothing in the assessment order as to how subsequently after the search and seizure operation leading to recovery of the mobile of Praveen Kumar Jain on 07.01.2021, the master copy and working copy were analysed by the investigation wing and how the same reached in the hands of the AO so as to have enabled the AO to take out and retrieve the image and use it as a part of evidence in the show cause notice issued on 23.11.2022 and so as to be further reproduced in the assessment order.

21. The certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 rather was needed when data of the digital device was retrieved to take out a digital image and to show that hash value recorded at the time of preparation of the section 65B certificate by Digital Forensic Examiner matched with the hash value taken at the time of retrieving or extracting the electronic evidence which is not the case here.

22. Thus, we are inclined to sustain the challenge of the assessee before us in the two appeals holding that the electronic evidences relied lacks the legal sanctity and sufficient veracity, required, to draw the conclusive inferences on the digital evidence in the form of image of document. Corresponding Grounds No.2 and 3 deserve to be allowed.