Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ (SMC
Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE
अपीलाथ# क& ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.D. Anand, Adv. $%यथ# क& ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.B. Sagadevan, JCIT सुनवाई क& तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 30.07.2018 : 01.08.2018 घोषणा क& तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
In this appeal filed by the assessee, it is aggrieved on a disallowance of Rs.4,74,508/- which was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A).
Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was a trader in gold silver bullion and gold jewellery. As per the Ld.AR, assessee had purchases of Rs.40,74,64,109/- of gold bullion, Rs.1,25,92,347/- of silver bullion and Rs.17,18,508/- of old gold during the relevant previous year. Further, as per the Ld.AR against the above purchases, assessee had sales of Rs.40,69,79,944/-, Rs.1,50,78,196/- and Rs.9,32,071/- respectively. Contention of the Ld.AR was that the assessee had maintained cash book, ledger and stock register all of which were examined by the AO. However, as per the Ld.AR, the AO disallowed purchases of Rs.4,74,508/- made by the assessee from its walk-in- customers. Contention of the Ld.AR was that assessee was having vouchers for such purchases and therefore, it was not fair, for the lower authorities to disbelieve such purchases, and make an addition. As per the Ld.AR, disallowance was made for the sole reason that the invoices were not bearing the signature and address of the walk-in-customers.
According to him, without rejecting the books, purchases alone could not have been disbelieved.
Per contra, the Ld.DR strongly supporting the orders of the lower authorities, submitted that the invoices for the walk-in-customers did not have the address of such customers or any identifiable particulars about them. Thus, according to the Ld.DR, assessee failed to discharge its onus of substantiating the purchases.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record.
It is not disputed that the assessee had produced its books of accounts and stock register before the AO. Such books of accounts and stock registers, were verified by the Ld.AO. No defects or deficiencies were pointed out by the AO in such books. In other words, all purchases were reflected in the stock register. Once the stock register has been accepted, in our opinion, lower authorities fell in error in disbelieving the purchases from walk-in-customers when such purchases were miniscule, when compared to the total purchase and turnover of the assessee.
Assessee had produced vouchers for the purchases made from walk-in- customers. In the nature of the trade of the assessee, it may not be always possible to keep obtain the address and signature of each of the walk-in-customers, who were selling their old gold in small quantities. In my opinion, no defects having been found in the books of the assessee, the disallowance was not warranted. Such disallowance stands deleted.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed