RAJ KUMAR AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-63(3), NEW DELHI

The notice sent through speed post fixing the date of hearing on 19.05.2022 has been served on the assessee. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. We noticed from the record that similar notice was issued fixing the date of hearing on 21.02.2022 and the notice was served on the assessee. However, none appeared on behalf of the I.T.A.No.9046/Del/2019 assessee, nor any adjournment was sought. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of this appeal on hearing the Ld. DR.

The Ld. DR submits that in the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) along with questionnaire requiring the assessee to furnish the details and explanations on the return filed by the assessee. The Ld. DR submits that neither the assessee nor his Representative attended when the case was fixed for hearing on several occasions. Since the assessee was not attending the hearings and could not explain as to why income of the assessee should not be estimated and why deduction claimed u/s 80C be not disallowed in the absence of proof the assessee did not furnish any explanation and not cooperated with the proceedings. In view of this, the Assessing Officer estimated the gross profit of the assessee at 8% on the gross receipts and, accordingly, brought to tax an amount of Rs.22,93,543/-. Ld. DR submits that penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. DR submits that since the Ld. CIT(A) reduced the estimation of gross profit to 5% as against 8% estimated by the Assessing Officer the Assessing Officer levied penalty on the addition sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) holding that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Ld. DR submits that the penalty levied by the AO was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be confirmed.