Rajesh Shivji Shah v. ITO
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
The reported ruling concerns purchases supported by invoices, banking records, sales and VAT material, together with a cross-examination issue. The addition is reported as deleted.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: 69C
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- Purchase addition, banking records and cross-examination: The reported ruling concerns purchases supported by invoices, banking records, sales and VAT material, together with a cross-examination issue. The addition is reported as deleted.
Material facts and background
going through the records, I noticed that assessee is in the business of selling new born babies products and the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of third party information received from the Sales Tax Department, Mumbai which alleged that certain suppliers were
assessee had made purchases from the said suppliers therefore additions were made on the ground that assessee could not produce the said suppliers for verification from whom the assessee had made purchases to the tune of Rs. 16,29,314/-. 4.
However during the assessment proceedings in order
to prove the genuineness of these purchases, assessee had submitted
transactions. The assessee has also proved on record that the entire payments were made through banking channel. 5.
It is an undisputed fact that the Ld.AO throughout
had never provided any documents, statements, affidavit which he had in his possession for cross examination of the alleged hawala suppliers.
Appellant / assessee submissions
The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.
Revenue / respondent submissions
The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
disallowance of purchases cannot be sustained when the VAT authorities have accepted the transactions. 11. Since the facts of the present case are identical with the facts in the case of Ashok Kumar Rungta (supra), therefore I am of the view that disallowance of purchases in the present case cannot be sustained when the VAT authorities itself have accepted the transactions. Although revenue has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Kanak Impex (Ind) Ltd Vs. ITA No. 791 of 2021, but the facts contained in the said decisions are different from the facts of the present case as in the case of PCIT Vs. Kanak Impex (Ind) Ltd (supra), the assessee had not cooperated and has not submitted the entire records and the books of accounts in the said case were also rejected. Whereas as per the facts of the present case the assessee had made full compliance before the AO by submitting all the relevant documents and the books of accounts have AO.
Operative decision and relief
adjudication as the same are academic in nature. 13. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.04.2025. Sd/-
Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment
- No reliable precedent list was extracted automatically; use the full judgment for the citation chain.
This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.
Ratio and legal principle
The decision turns on Purchase addition, banking records and cross-examination. The operative result is classified as Partly Allowed. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Why this judgment matters
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Purchase addition, banking records and cross-examination. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
Practitioner action points
- Build a transaction-level evidence file: confirmations, bank trail, invoices, ledger, tax/GST records and counter-party material rather than relying on a generic explanation.
- Where the addition depends on a third-party statement or investigation report, record the request for the relied material and cross-examination at the earliest stage.
- For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.
Do not over-read this case
- The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy
- Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result.
- Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
How to apply this decision in practice
This ITAT Mumbai decision should be used by matching the client’s facts to the precise controversy in the case—Purchase addition, banking records and cross-examination—rather than by relying only on the result. Start with the statutory version applicable to the relevant year and compare it with 69C. Amendments, notifications, later Supreme Court/High Court decisions and a different procedural stage can materially change the answer.
For an assessment or litigation file, retain the documents that prove the factual bridge on which the judgment turns: the original notice/order, replies and objections, acknowledgements of filing/service, ledger and banking trail where relevant, contracts or property instruments where relevant, and the complete appellate chronology. If the case succeeds on jurisdiction or natural justice, do not assume the same outcome where the authority cures that defect. If it succeeds on evidence, identify exactly which documents the Court or Tribunal considered persuasive.
For unexplained-income or purchase cases, prepare a source-and-evidence matrix: identity, capacity, genuineness, invoices, e-way/transport records, bank statements, stock/sales reconciliation, third-party statements and cross-examination requests. The evidentiary record is usually what determines whether the precedent truly applies.
Finin2min reliance rule: cite the case for the narrow legal proposition actually decided, record any contrary authority, and attach the full judgment to the working paper or litigation file. This reduces the risk of a headnote or short summary being used outside its factual and statutory context.
Verification before citation
Because this is a comparatively short order, the practical value lies in its precise procedural and factual setting rather than its length. Before citing it, compare the complete paper-book chronology, the statutory wording for the relevant year, the forum’s jurisdiction and any later appellate history. A short order can be decisive, but only for the proposition actually adjudicated. Finin2min therefore provides the full judgment PDF alongside this note so the primary reasoning can be checked rather than inferred from the summary alone.
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence
Decision support built around the judgment: reliance, fact match, Q&A, section impact, related-case network and practical next steps.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | ITAT |
|---|---|
| Reliance effect | Tribunal precedent. Persuasive for similar facts; subject to the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court. Coordinate-Bench discipline should be checked. |
| Source integrity | A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending. |
| Subsequent history | Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. |
| Finin2min status | Later-history check open |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- Your dispute raises the same core issue: Purchase addition, banking records and cross-examination.
- The same statutory provisions or materially equivalent provisions apply: 69C.
- Your matter is at a comparable the same procedural and factual stage stage.
- Your documentary/evidentiary record is materially similar to the facts the ITAT Mumbai considered: going through the records, I noticed that assessee is in the business of selling new born babies products and the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of third party information received from the Sales Tax Department, Mumbai which alleged that certain suppliers were…
- The same legal regime or assessment-period rules relevant to AY 2011-12 apply to your matter.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court ruling changes the legal position.
- The statutory provision was amended for your year or transaction.
- Your evidence, transaction structure, notice chronology or procedural stage differs on a fact the judgment treated as material.
- The case succeeded on a narrow jurisdictional/procedural defect that the authority has cured in your matter.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Rajesh Shivji Shah?
The reported ruling concerns purchases supported by invoices, banking records, sales and VAT material, together with a cross-examination issue. The addition is reported as deleted.
Which facts mattered most to the result?
going through the records, I noticed that assessee is in the business of selling new born babies products and the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of third party information received from the Sales Tax Department, Mumbai which alleged that certain suppliers were assessee had made purchases from the said suppliers therefore additions were made on the ground that assessee could not produce the said suppliers for verification from whom the assessee had made purchases to the tune of Rs. 16,29,314/-. 4.
What did the ITAT Mumbai ultimately decide?
adjudication as the same are academic in nature. 13. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.
What legal principle can be taken from this judgment?
The decision turns on Purchase addition, banking records and cross-examination. The operative result is classified as Partly Allowed. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Which provisions should be checked before relying on the case?
The case engages 69C. The relevant statutory version for AY 2011-12 should be checked together with any later amendment, notification, circular and controlling higher-court authority.
When is this judgment most useful to a taxpayer or adviser?
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Purchase addition, banking records and cross-examination . Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
What could make this judgment distinguishable or unsafe to rely on?
The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result. Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
Can this judgment be cited as current law without another check?
Tribunal precedent. Persuasive for similar facts; subject to the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court. Coordinate-Bench discipline should be checked. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending.
Section / provision impact
- 69C — 69C is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of purchase addition, banking records and cross-examination. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
How the decision changes your analysis
Before using this authority, frame the issue under 69C and identify the decisive facts/evidence. The result should not be assumed from the case title alone.
The decision turns on Purchase addition, banking records and cross-examination. The operative result is classified as Partly Allowed. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Tribunal precedent. Persuasive for similar facts; subject to the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court. Coordinate-Bench discipline should be checked. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work.
Case network: similar and different outcomes
Closest related cases in the Finin2min repository
Related cases with a different result
Related-case links are repository similarity connections, not a claim that one judgment cites or overrules another. Use the cited-authority list and later-history check for formal precedent analysis.
Working-paper citation
Full judgment and source trail
Read / download the clean local judgment copy
| Packaged source class | SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING |
|---|---|
| Pages | 8 |
| SHA-256 | 9b1426d7ce32933cd7cc4b11de9fba7961e939f66ce058693df9987de2b90408 |
| Original source URL | Not exposed publicly. Original provenance retained only in the private source-closure ledger. |
| Source authentication | Sanitized local full-text copy - official primary replacement pending |