WhatsApp Chats Section 69 Addition: Important ITAT Pune Ruling on Third-Party Evidence

Can the Income Tax Department treat an amount as unexplained investment merely on the basis of WhatsApp chats recovered from somebody else’s mobile phone?

The recent decision of ITAT Pune in Rameshwar Fakirchand Totala v. ITO, Ward-1(1), Aurangabad, ITA No. 1303/PUN/2026, dated 21 August 2026, provides an important perspective on this issue.

The Assessing Officer had made an addition of ₹10,52,450 under Section 69 on the allegation that WhatsApp chats recovered from a third party’s phone reflected Bhisi payments by the assessee.

The CIT(A)/NFAC sustained the addition.

The ITAT, however, deleted it.

Why was the Section 69 addition deleted?

The principal difficulty in the Revenue’s case was the absence of independent evidence demonstrating that the assessee had actually made the alleged investment or payment.

The WhatsApp chats had been recovered from the mobile phone of another person.

There was no sufficient independent evidence such as movement of funds, bank transactions or other corroborative material proving the alleged investment.

The Tribunal also considered the authentication of the electronic evidence.

Section 132(4A) presumption and third-party evidence

An important aspect of the ruling concerns the presumption under Section 132(4A).

The ITAT held that such presumption could not automatically be extended against another taxpayer merely because his name or mobile number appeared in material found during a search from a third party.

The Revenue was required to establish an independent connection between the recovered material and the assessee.

This makes the judgment relevant for cases involving not only WhatsApp chats but also third-party Excel sheets, diaries, loose papers, emails and other digital records.

Can WhatsApp chats still be used as evidence?

Yes.

The decision should not be interpreted to mean that WhatsApp chats are never relevant in income-tax proceedings.

The evidentiary strength becomes very different where digital records are supported by:

• bank transactions;
• cash trails;
• seized books or documents;
• asset purchases;
• statements or admissions; or
• other independent corroborative evidence.

Therefore, the more accurate principle is:

Unauthenticated third-party WhatsApp chats, without sufficient independent corroboration, should not automatically be treated as proof of an unexplained investment under Section 69.

What taxpayers should do

If you receive an income-tax notice based upon third-party information, do not restrict the reply merely to denying the transaction.

Examine:

1. where the material was recovered;
2. how the electronic evidence was authenticated;
3. whether the complete material has been supplied;
4. what connects the material with you;
5. whether an actual money trail exists; and
6. whether independent corroborative evidence supports the allegation.

Professional representation in income tax search, reassessment, faceless assessment and appellate proceedings should address both the factual evidence and the legal admissibility/reliability of material relied upon by the Department.

Readers may also refer to our earlier analysis of an ITAT Mumbai ruling concerning Section 69A addition based on third-party mobile entries and WhatsApp chats.

Read the detailed case analysis

👉 WhatsApp Chats Section 69 Addition – Rameshwar Fakirchand Totala v. ITO

The full article examines the facts, Section 69, Section 132(4A), electronic evidence and practical implications for taxpayers facing digital-evidence-based additions.

#IncomeTax #Section69 #WhatsAppChats #ElectronicEvidence #ITATPune #TaxLitigation #IncomeTaxSearch #UnexplainedInvestment