, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C (SMC) BENCH: CHENNAI . , BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.703/CHNY/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S.MAHAVEER BULLION PVT. LTD., NEW NO.37, OLD NO.5A, THALAYATHAM BAZAR STREET, GUDIYATHAM, VELLORE DISTRICT-632 602. VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, VELLORE. [PAN: AAICM 1167 H ] ( # /APPELLANT) ( $%# /RESPONDENT) # & / APPELLANT BY : MR.D. ANAND, ADV. $%# & /RESPONDENT BY : MR.B. SAGADEVAN, JCIT & /DATE OF HEARING : 30.07.2018 & /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.08.2018 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS AGGRIE VED ON A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,74,508/- WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT( A). 2. 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 DURIN G THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. FURTHER, AS PER THE LD.AR AGAINST THE ABOVE PURCHASES, ASSESSEE ITA NO.703/CHNY/2018 :- 2 -: HAD SALES OF RS.40,69,79,944/-, RS.1,50,78,196/- AN D 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 FRO M ITS WALK-IN- CUSTOMERS. CONTENTION OF THE LD.AR WAS THAT ASSESS EE WAS HAVING VOUCHERS FOR SUCH PURCHASES AND THEREFORE, IT WAS N OT FAIR, FOR THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO DISBELIEVE SUCH PURCHASES, AND MAKE AN ADDITION. AS PER THE LD.AR, DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE FOR THE SOLE REASO N THAT THE INVOICES WERE NOT BEARING THE SIGNATURE AND ADDRESS OF THE W ALK-IN-CUSTOMERS. ACCORDING TO HIM, WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS, PURC HASES ALONE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISBELIEVED. 3. PER CONTRA, THE LD.DR STRONGLY SUPPORTING THE OR DERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, SUBMITTED THAT THE INVOICES FOR THE WA LK-IN-CUSTOMERS DID NOT HAVE THE ADDRESS OF SUCH CUSTOMERS OR ANY IDENTIFIA BLE PARTICULARS ABOUT THEM. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, ASSESSEE FAILE D TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS OF SUBSTANTIATING THE PURCHASES. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. 5. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCE D ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND STOCK REGISTER BEFORE THE AO. SUCH BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ITA NO.703/CHNY/2018 :- 3 -: STOCK REGISTERS, WERE VERIFIED BY THE LD.AO. NO DE FECTS OR DEFICIENCIES WERE POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN SUCH BOOKS. IN OTHER WORDS, ALL PURCHASES WERE REFLECTED IN THE STOCK REGISTER. ONCE THE STOC K REGISTER HAS BEEN ACCEPTED, IN OUR OPINION, LOWER AUTHORITIES FELL IN ERROR IN DISBELIEVING THE PURCHASES FROM WALK-IN-CUSTOMERS WHEN SUCH PURCHASE S WERE MINISCULE, WHEN COMPARED TO THE TOTAL PURCHASE AND TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED VOUCHERS FOR THE PURCHASES MA DE FROM WALK-IN- CUSTOMERS. IN THE NATURE OF THE TRADE OF THE ASSESS EE, IT MAY NOT BE ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO KEEP OBTAIN THE ADDRESS AND SIGN ATURE 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 BOO KS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DISALLOWANCE WAS NOT WARRANTED. SUCH DISALLOWAN CE STANDS DELETED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 1 ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ) ( ABRAHAM P.GEORGE ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, - /DATED: AUGUST 01, 2018. TLN & $./ 0/ /COPY TO: 1. # /APPELLANT 4. 1 /CIT 2. $%# /RESPONDENT 5. / $ /DR 3. 1 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. /GF