LALIT KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITO), WARD 35(1), NEW DELHI

In spite of issue of notice, none appeared on behalf of assessee nor any adjournment was moved. Thus, we hear the Ld. DR and dispose of this appeal on merits. 3. Heard Ld. DR, perused the orders of the authorities below. 4. On perusal of the assessment order, it is noticed that in the course of assessment proceedings the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the AO for establishing the genuineness of the purchases made by the assessee from various parties. In spite of several opportunities given by the AO the assessee did not respond to the notices and therefore the AO estimated the profit element at 25% of the total purchases as income of the assessee. 5. On appeal the Ld. CIT(Appeals) sustained the addition as the assessee could not establish the genuineness of the purchases. Ld. CIT(Appeals) agreed with the view of the AO. Even before us the assessee could not establish the genuineness of the purchases and therefore we see no infirmity in the order passed by the authorities below. Thus, we sustain the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the grounds raised by the assessee. LALIT KUMAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.10.2025 (M BALAGANESH) (C.N. PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27.10.2025 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S.