M/S MAHAVEER BULLION PVT LTD,VELLORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, VELLORE

ITA 703/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 August 2018AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's books of accounts and stock register were accepted by the AO without defects, and the purchases from walk-in customers were miniscule, the disallowance was not warranted. The Tribunal noted that obtaining full details from walk-in customers selling small quantities might not always be feasible.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a trader in gold and silver bullion, disallowed purchases of Rs. 4,74,508/- from walk-in customers. The disallowance was based on the absence of signatures and addresses on the invoices for these purchases.

What were the issues?

Whether purchases from walk-in customers can be disallowed solely due to lack of signatures and addresses on invoices when the assessee's books are otherwise accepted.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ (SMC

Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE

Hearing: 30.07.2018

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →