SHRAVAN KUMAR MOHTA,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), FARIDABAD

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Faridabad [hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals)] dated 29.04.2019 in sustaining the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the assessment year 2008-09. 1

In spite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought. From the record placed before me it is observed that the notice sent through Speed Post fixing the date of hearing on 13.10.2021 was served on the assessee and assessee did not present on that date. Notices were also issued thereafter fixing the date of hearing on several dates but the assessee could not present. The notice issued fixing the date of hearing on 18.04.2022 returned un-served by postal authorities with the remark “Left”. Therefore, this appeal is disposed of on hearing the ld. DR.

The ld. DR submits that while completing the assessment the Assessing Officer required the assessee to prove the genuineness of purchases made from M/s. Maa Durga Trading Company. However, the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the purchases made. The Assessing Officer treated the said purchases as un-proved. However, the Assessing Officer estimated the profit element from such purchases @ 30% and brought to tax an amount of Rs.45,70,500/-. The ld. DR submits that on appeal by the assessee the ld. CIT (Appeals) estimated the profit element from the purchases at 12.5% as against 30% made by the Assessing Officer. The ld. DR submits that the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.6,47,297/- for concealment of particulars of income as the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the purchases made by the assessee. The ld. CIT (Appeals) sustained the penalty.