Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram,, Guntur vs The Acit,, Guntur on 28 June, 2017

Venkata Rosaiah Kilari,Guntur vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 30 April, 2026

25. We find that the Tribunal, while disposing of the appeal in the case of M/s Polisetty Somasundaram Vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Guntur, vide its order passed in ITA Nos. 172 to 180/Viz/2023 dated 18.08.2023, while adjudicating the appeals arising out of the same search proceedings, examined the evidentiary value of the identical pen drive data. The Tribunal, after a detailed analysis of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, held that the certificate furnished under that section was not in accordance with the mandatory requirements of law. It was specifically observed that the conditions prescribed under Section 65B(2) and 65B(4) were not satisfied, and, therefore, the electronic record derived from the pen drive could not be treated as admissible evidence. Accordingly, the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram group deleted the additions made solely on the basis of such electronic data, holding that, in the absence of a valid Section 65B certificate, the printouts of the seized pen drive data had no evidentiary value and could not be relied upon to sustain the additions.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Vizag Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Venkata Rosaiah Kilari, Guntur on 30 April, 2026

25. We find that the Tribunal, while disposing of the appeal in the case of M/s Polisetty Somasundaram Vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Guntur, vide its order passed in ITA Nos. 172 to 180/Viz/2023 dated 18.08.2023, while adjudicating the appeals arising out of the same search proceedings, examined the evidentiary value of the identical pen drive data. The Tribunal, after a detailed analysis of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, held that the certificate furnished under that section was not in accordance with the mandatory requirements of law. It was specifically observed that the conditions prescribed under Section 65B(2) and 65B(4) were not satisfied, and, therefore, the electronic record derived from the pen drive could not be treated as admissible evidence. Accordingly, the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram group deleted the additions made solely on the basis of such electronic data, holding that, in the absence of a valid Section 65B certificate, the printouts of the seized pen drive data had no evidentiary value and could not be relied upon to sustain the additions.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Vizag Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chennamaneni Mithun Chand,Hyderabad vs Acit Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad on 15 May, 2026

19. As regards the objection raised by the assessee regarding the evidentiary value of the said seized material as taken from the pendrive in the absence of Certificate u/sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is concerned, there is no dispute that the said document was taken from the pendirve which is a digital mode of record and therefore, the admissibility of the digital evidence is subject to the provisions of sec.65B of the Evidence Act. In the case in and, when no such Certificate is taken or brought on record then, such material which is taken from the pendrive/computer system is having no evidentiary value in the absence of the Certificate to the effect of the information and contents of electronic record to be true and correct. The Visakhapatnam Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. The DCIT, Guntur in ITA.Nos. 172 to 180/Viz./2023, dated 18.08.2023 has considered this issue in Para nos.45 and 46 as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chennamaneni Mithun Chand,Hyderabad vs Acit Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad on 15 May, 2026

19. As regards the objection raised by the assessee regarding the evidentiary value of the said seized material as taken from the pendrive in the absence of Certificate u/sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is concerned, there is no dispute that the said document was taken from the pendirve which is a digital mode of record and therefore, the admissibility of the digital evidence is subject to the provisions of sec.65B of the Evidence Act. In the case in and, when no such Certificate is taken or brought on record then, such material which is taken from the pendrive/computer system is having no evidentiary value in the absence of the Certificate to the effect of the information and contents of electronic record to be true and correct. The Visakhapatnam Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. The DCIT, Guntur in ITA.Nos. 172 to 180/Viz./2023, dated 18.08.2023 has considered this issue in Para nos.45 and 46 as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ganga Devi ,Guntur vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 31 October, 2025

9. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. Ld. AO relied on the seized material and the statement recorded by Shri P. Shyam Sundar admitting the fact that there are transactions entered into by the M/s.Polisetty Somasundaram outside the books of accounts by way of short invoicing while collecting the excess amount by way of cash from various parties. However, these evidences were not corroborated with any of the documents in the hands of the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) while relying on the decision of the Jurisdictional ITAT in the case of M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram v. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Guntur (supra) wherein it was held that the digital evidence (pendrive) seized is invalid digital evidence as the conditions specified in section 65B(2) and 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act was not followed by the Revenue in the case of M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram. However, the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO to the extent of Rs.6,91,551/- wherein the Ld. AO had relied upon the vouchers seized vide Annexure A/PSS/CORP/4 from the search premises. These evidences were not disputed by the assessee. Various judicial pronouncements have repeatedly held that the documents seized in the searched party premises should be corroborated with other evidences for making the addition in the hands of the third party or enquiry has to be made by the Ld. AO while substantiating the additions in the hands of the third party. In the instant case, Ld. AO found the said vouchers is Page. No 6 ITA No. 66/VIZ/2025 Ganga Devi ITA Nos. 72 & 73/VIZ/2025 Ranaram incriminating nature containing the unaccounted transactions. Ld. CIT(A) in his findings has observed that the Ld. AO has conducted independent examination of the evidences that has been seized. Further, Shri P. Shyam Sundar in his sworn statement has confirmed about the unaccounted cash receipts due to under invoicing which was not retracted by him. In these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and we do not wish to interfere in the decision of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Vizag Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ranaram,Guntur vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 31 October, 2025

9. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. Ld. AO relied on the seized material and the statement recorded by Shri P. Shyam Sundar admitting the fact that there are transactions entered into by the M/s.Polisetty Somasundaram outside the books of accounts by way of short invoicing while collecting the excess amount by way of cash from various parties. However, these evidences were not corroborated with any of the documents in the hands of the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) while relying on the decision of the Jurisdictional ITAT in the case of M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram v. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Guntur (supra) wherein it was held that the digital evidence (pendrive) seized is invalid digital evidence as the conditions specified in section 65B(2) and 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act was not followed by the Revenue in the case of M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram. However, the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO to the extent of Rs.6,91,551/- wherein the Ld. AO had relied upon the vouchers seized vide Annexure A/PSS/CORP/4 from the search premises. These evidences were not disputed by the assessee. Various judicial pronouncements have repeatedly held that the documents seized in the searched party premises should be corroborated with other evidences for making the addition in the hands of the third party or enquiry has to be made by the Ld. AO while substantiating the additions in the hands of the third party. In the instant case, Ld. AO found the said vouchers is Page. No 6 ITA No. 66/VIZ/2025 Ganga Devi ITA Nos. 72 & 73/VIZ/2025 Ranaram incriminating nature containing the unaccounted transactions. Ld. CIT(A) in his findings has observed that the Ld. AO has conducted independent examination of the evidences that has been seized. Further, Shri P. Shyam Sundar in his sworn statement has confirmed about the unaccounted cash receipts due to under invoicing which was not retracted by him. In these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and we do not wish to interfere in the decision of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Vizag Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1