DCIT CIRCLE- 43(1), NEW DELHI vs. MANISH DHAWAN, DERAWAL NAGAR, DELHI

On hearing both the sides, we find that the ld. DR has heavily relied the assessment order submitting that it is a well reasoned order and circumstances show fabrication of bills and sales and rightly the ld. AO had invoked the principles of human probabilities to display the alleged sale of gold and jewellery during the demonetization period to be bogus. 3. In this context, we find that the ld.AO has specifically doubted the sale by observing that such a huge number of customers could not have been catered within a small showroom space and in three hours. The ld. AO observes in para 8.8 that the assessee has failed to produce the books of account as called for during the assessment proceedings, therefore, the genuineness and veracity of cash sale bills stands unverified. 4. Amongst other grounds, the Department raised ground No.4 that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in not providing an opportunity to the AO under Rule 46A to give comments/counter the issues raised. However, the ld. AR has submitted that no additional evidences were filed before the ld.CIT(A) and provisions of Rule 46A were not invoked. In this context, we find that in para 8.2, the ld. AO mentions of the fact that details as per the notice issued were filed and at page No.79, the ld.CIT(A) mentions that during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings the assessee has submitted sales bills, purchase register/accounts, stock register, his financial statements, VAT returns from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017, cash book and bank statements. The ld.CIT(A) mentions that cross verification on test check basis was also conducted to check the veracity and 3 Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.1011/Del/2022, order dated 18.08.2023 and Deepak Sharma vs. ACIT, ITA No.2886/Del/2022, order dated 26.03.2025, have benefitted the assessees. The grounds raised by the Revenue, thus, have no substance. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.