KUMUD CHAND JAIN HUF, Jaipur v. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 118/JPR/2016 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2016 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 11823114 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AAEHK0120M
Bench Jaipur
Appeal Number ITA 118/JPR/2016
Duration Of Justice 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant KUMUD CHAND JAIN HUF, Jaipur
Respondent ITO, Jaipur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 26-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted Not Allotted
Tribunal Order Date 26-10-2016
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 08-02-2016
Judgment Text
VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC) JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 118 &119/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 & 2008-09 SHRI KUMUD CHAND JAIN HUF PROP. M/S. K.S. EXPORTS 63 SHOPPING CENTRE NEAR PITAL FACTORY BANIPARK JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 3 (2) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AAEHK 0120 M VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: SHRI P.C. PARWAL CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY :SHRI R.A. VERMA ADDL CIT-. DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 10/10/2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26/10/2016 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND AM BOTH THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ALIGARH (CAMP OFFICE AT JAIPUR ) DATED 17-12- 2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 2008-09 U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL IN RESPECTIVE APPEALS. ITA NO. 118/JP/2016 A.Y. 2007-08 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN C ONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) AT RS. 1 93 414/ - ITA NO. 118/JP/2016 SHRI KUMUD CHAND JAIN HUF VS. ITO WARD- 3 (2) JA IPUR . 2 2.1 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMERGES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDER:- 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF:- IN THIS CASE FACTS ASSESS MENT U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 29-12-2009 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 8 34 488/- AS AGAIN ST RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 1 78 620/-. IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER THE AO HAD DETAILED THE MANNER AND METHOD IN WHICH APPELLANT HAS INDULGED IN PROVIDING BOGUS BILLS TO VARIOUS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PRECIOUS AND SEMI PRECIO US STONES. ADMITTEDLY THE APPELLANT HAS EARNED COMMIS SION BY PROVIDING SUCH BOGUS BILLS. INCOME WAS ASSESSED BY TAKING COMMISSION @ .5% OF THE TOTAL BILLS ISSUED AND THUS THE ADDITION OF RS. 8 34 488/- WAS MADE. FURTHER THE L D. CIT(A) HAS REDUCED THE INCOME BY RS. 1 78 620/- BUT UPHELD THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE AO. IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS AFTER CONSIDERING THE APPELLANTS REPLY THE AO HAS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT WAS INTENTIONALLY HIDING THE TRUE FAC TS WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THEREBY HAS CONCEAL ED HIS TRUE AND CORRECT INCOME BY FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICU LARS OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY PENALTY OF RS. 1 93 414/- HAS BEEN IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2.2 IN FIRST APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) HAD CONFIRMED T HE PENALTY OF RS. 1 93 414/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY OBSERVIN G AS UNDER:- 5.2 IN THE PENALTY ORDER THE AO OBSERVED THAT ON THE ONE HAND THE APPELLANT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCO ME SHOWING THAT IT WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF PRECIOUS STONES AND TOTAL SALES WERE RS. 16 68 97 557/- AND ON THE OTHER HAND WHEN CAUGHT BY DEPARTMENT IT HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT THAT IT HA D SIMPLY ISSUED BOGUS BILLS AND OBTAINED COMMISSION THEREON. IN THE OPINION OF THE AO THESE UNDISPUTED FACTS ESTABLISH ES THAT THE APPELLANT WAS INTENTIONALLY HIDING THE TRUE FACTS W HILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. THUS THE APPELLANT HAD FURNIS HED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. ACCORDING TO THE AO IN ITA NO. 118/JP/2016 SHRI KUMUD CHAND JAIN HUF VS. ITO WARD- 3 (2) JA IPUR . 3 VIEW OF THE APPELLANTS ADMISSION AS CONTAINED IN T HE AFFIDAVIT THE FACT OF CONCEALMENT IS CLEARLY ESTAB LISHED. THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION IS THAT THE PENALTY NOTI CE DOES NOT SPECIFY AS TO WHETHER THE PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS WERE INITIATED FOR COMPUTATION OF INCOME OR FURNISHING I NACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. ON MERIT IT HAS BEEN ESTABL ISHED THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON ESTIMATE BASIS. I HAVE CONSIDERED ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND ALSO APPELLANT WRITTEN SUBMISSION. IN MY OPINION APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT THE NOTICE DOE S NOT INDICATE WHETHER THERE IS COMPUTATION OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IS JUST AN ATTEMPT TO HIDE BEHIND IRRELEVANT TECHNICALITIES IN ORDER TO ESCAPE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO ADDRESS THE CORE ISSUE . A COPY OF THE NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED SO AS TO ENABLE M E TO EVALUATE THE MERITS OF THIS CONTENTION. MOREOVER I N THE FACE OF TECHNICAL IRREGULARITIES IF ANY IT IS THE RESPO NSIBILITY OF THE APPELLANT TO SHOW THAT IT HAS SUFFERED SOME PREJUDI CE. IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT ANY KIND OF PREJUDICE HAS BEEN SUFFERED BY THE APPELLANT. HENCE I AM NOT INCLINE TO ACCEPT THIS ARGUMENT. WITH REGARD TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE THE APPELLAN TS CONTENTION IS THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON ES TIMATE BASIS AND AS SUCH PENALTY IS NOT LEVIABLE. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS ARGUMENT. IN THIS CASE THE APPELLANT ITSELF H AS ADMITTED THAT IT WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING BOGUS BILLS TO VAR IOUS PARTIES AND EARNING COMMISSION THEREON. SUCH ENTRY PROVIDERS ARE INDEED A BANE OF OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM AS IT ABETS EVASION OF TAX AND THUS JEOPARDIZES FINANCIAL SECURITY AND WELL BEING OF THE COMMON MAN. IN MY OPINION SUC H LAW BREAKING PEOPLE DO NOT DESERVE ANY LENIENCY. IN THI S CASE THE APPELLANT FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE DECLARED SALES AN D PURCHASES ETC. THUS THE AO WAS CONSTRAINED TO REJECT THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE WAS NO O PTION BUT TO ESTIMATE INCOME. THUS THIS ESTIMATION HAS B EEN CAUSED BY APPELLANTS FAILURE TO PROVE ITS DECLARED ACCOUNTING RESULTS BY PRODUCING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND SUPPORTI NG EVIDENCE. THUS THE ESTIMATION IS A NATURAL COROLLA RY OF ITA NO. 118/JP/2016 SHRI KUMUD CHAND JAIN HUF VS. ITO WARD- 3 (2) JA IPUR . 4 APPELLANTS OWN WRONG DOINGS. NO ONE CAN BE ALLOWED TO TAKE BENEFIT OF HIS OWN WRONG DOING AS IT IS AGAINS T THE SPIRIT OF LAW. FURTHER THERE ARE VARIOUS CASES WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PENALTY U/S 271(1) IS LEVIABLE EVEN IF T HE INCOME HAS BEEN ESTIMATED. SOME SUCH CASES ARE AS UNDER:- (I) ALLAHABD HIGH COURT CIT VS. SWAROOP COLD STORAGE 136 ITR 435 (II) MADRAS HIGH COURT AK BASHU SAHIB VS. CIT 108 ITR 736 (III) PATNA HIGH COURT CIT VS. K.D. ARORA 162 ITR 481 (IV) MADRAS HIGH COURT CIT VS. BALKRISHNA TEXTILES 193 ITR 361 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR LEVYIN G PENALTY U/S 271(1). AS THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INC OME AS WELL AS FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INC OME. ACCORDINGLY I UPHOLD THE AOS DECISION OF IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 1 93 414/-. THUS THIS GROUND OF APP EAL IS DISMISSED. 2.3 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR DELETION OF PENALTY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AM OUNTING TO RS. 1 93 414/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSION. 1. FROM THE FACTS IT CAN BE NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HA S DECLARED INCOME OF RS.1 78 620/- ON THE TURNOVER OF RS.16 68 97 578/- WHICH GIVES A RATE OF 0.10%. IN THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESS EE HE HAS ONLY STATED THAT THE DALALS USED TO COME WITH HIM WITH THE BILL OF URD P URCHASE VOUCHER WHICH HE ACCOUNTED FOR AS PURCHASES AND USED TO TAKE THE GOO DS FOR WHICH HE ISSUED THE SALES BILLS BY ADDING HIS MARGIN OF RS.100 TO RS.20 0 PER LACS. THIS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS AN ACTIVITY OF BOGUS BILLING ON WHICH ITA NO. 118/JP/2016 SHRI KUMUD CHAND JAIN HUF VS. ITO WARD- 3 (2) JA IPUR . 5 AO HAS HIMSELF GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE RATE OF COM MISSION CHARGED BY PERSONS INVOLVED IN THIS ACTIVITY IS RANGING FROM 0 .20% TO 0.60%. HOWEVER IN THE ASSESSEES CASE IT IS ESTIMATED AT 0.50% AND TH US COMMISSION INCOME IS ESTIMATED AT RS.8 34 488/-. THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRME D THE SAME. 2. THUS IT CAN BE NOTED THAT AGAINST THE NET PROFI T OF 0.10% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AO HAS GIVEN A FINDING TH AT THE PROFIT IN THIS ACTIVITY RANGE FROM 0.20% TO 0.60% BUT HE APPLIED RATE OF 0. 50%. THIS ITSELF SHOWS THAT INCOME IS ESTIMATED. IF INCOME IS ESTIMATED BY APPL YING RATE OF 0.20% IT WOULD COME TO RS.3 33 795/- BUT AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXP ENSES LIKE COMPOSITION FEES AUDIT FEES SALARY ETC. INCOME WOULD IN NO CASE E XCEED 0.10% OF THE TURNOVER AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAV E ACCEPTED THE TURNOVER ON WHICH COMMISSION IS ESTIMATED. THUS THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIM ATING THE RATE OF COMMISSION WHICH ACCORDING TO THEM ALSO RANGES FROM 0.20% TO 0.60%. HENCE ON SUCH ESTIMATE ADDITION PENALTY IS NOT LEVIABLE. FOR THIS PURPOSE RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASES:- CIT V. MAHENDRA SINGH KHEDLA [2012] 252 CTR (RAJ.) 453 AO LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF TRADI NG ADDITION MADE BY APPLICATION OF N.P. RATE OF 8% ADDITION U/ S 68 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IN THE NAMES OF PARTNERS & DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON UNEXPLAINED CAPITAL. THE TRIBUNAL DELET ED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) UPON ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT IT WAS NOT A CASE OF POSITIVE CONCEALMENT AND TRADING ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION. ON FURTHER APPEAL THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HELD TH AT ADDITIONS MADE BY AO WERE BASED ON ESTIMATION ONLY. A FACT OR ALLEGATION BASED ON ESTIMATION CANNOT BE SAID TO BE CORRECT ONLY; IT CAN BE INCORRECT ALSO. THEREFORE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE PENALTY WAS WRONGLY LEVIED BY THE AO. THE BASIS FOR LEVYING PEN ALTY IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS ONLY ESTIMATION WHICH IS PURELY A QUESTIO N OF FACT AND THERE WAS A CONCURRENT FINDING OF FACT RECORDED BY FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL BOTH. THEREFORE THE PENALTY W AS RIGHTLY DELETED. SHIV LAL TAK V. CIT 251 ITR 353 (RAJ.) ESTIMATION OF INCOME IS NEITHER A CASE OF ADDITION NOR DISALLOWANCE BUT IT IS A CASE OF SUBSTITUTION ON WH ICH PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS NOT LEVIABLE. HARIGOPAL SINGH V. CIT 258 ITR 85 (P & H.) PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) ARE NOT ATTRACTED T O CASES WHERE INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE IS ASSESSED ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND TH E ADDITIONS WERE MADE THEREIN ON ESTIMATE BASIS. CIT VS. VIJAY KUMAR JAIN 38 DTR 345 (CHATTISGARH) ITA NO. 118/JP/2016 SHRI KUMUD CHAND JAIN HUF VS. ITO WARD- 3 (2) JA IPUR . 6 ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF APPLICATION OF HIGHER NET PR OFIT RATE AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DOES NOT ATTRACT THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) AS THE PARTICULARS OF REC EIPTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND INACCURATE AND THERE BEING N O ALLEGATION BY THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED ANY INCOME IN HIS R ETURN. CIT V. M.M.RICE MILLS 253 ITR 17 (PUNJ. & HAR.) WHERE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY APPLYING THE PROVIS O TO SECTION 145(1) ON ESTIMATE BASIS THE SAME CANT BE MADE A BASIS FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). IN VIEW OF ABOVE THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) U/S 271(1)(C) BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 2.4 THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES. 2.5 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESS EE ON THE ONE HAND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME SHOWING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF PRECIOUS STONES AND TOTAL SALES SHOWN WAS AMOUNTING TO RS. 16 68 97 588/- AND ON THE OTHER HAND WHEN THE A SSESSEE WAS CAUGHT BY THE DEPARTMENT THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT HE HAD SIMPLY ISSUED BOGUS BILLS AND OBTAINED COMMISSION T HEREON. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INTENTIONALLY CONCEALING THE TRUE FACTS WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HIMSELF HAD ADMITTED THAT HE IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING BOGUS BILL S TO VARIOUS PARTIES AND EARNING COMMISSION THEREON. SUCH BOGUS ENTRY PROVID ERS ARE HELPING TAX EVADERS TO EVADE TAX AND DEPRIVE REVENUE AUTHORITIE S FROM COLLECTING JUST TAX. SUCH ACTION OF THESE PEOPLE ARE DANGEROUS TO T HE FINANCIAL HEALTH OF ITA NO. 118/JP/2016 SHRI KUMUD CHAND JAIN HUF VS. ITO WARD- 3 (2) JA IPUR . 7 COUNTRY. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAI LED TO ESTABLISH THE DECLARED SALES AND PURCHASES ETC. AND HENCE THE AO WAS CONSTRAINED TO REJECT THE DECLARED INCOME AND TO ESTIMATE THE REA L INCOME. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES A ND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE I FIND THAT THE LD. CIT( A) HAS RIGHTLY UPHELD THE PENALTY OF RS. 1 93 414/- IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 119/JP/2016 A.Y. 2008-09 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN C ONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) AT RS. 2 08 396/ - 3.1 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED FROM THE PRESENT A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SIMILAR FACTS ARE SURROUNDED WITH ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IN ITA NO. 118/JP/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 (SUPRA) AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY OF RS. 2 08 396/- IN SIMILAR PARAMETERS OF ASSESSEE'S APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AS TO CONFIRMATION O F PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE AS UNDER:- 5.2 IN THE PENALTY ORDER THE AO OBSERVED THAT ON THE ONE HAND THE APPELLANT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCO ME SHOWING THAT IT WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF PRECIOUS STONES AND TOTAL SALES WERE RS. 16 80 47 697/- AND ON THE OTHER HAND WHEN CAUGHT BY DEPARTMENT IT HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT THAT IT HA D SIMPLY ITA NO. 118/JP/2016 SHRI KUMUD CHAND JAIN HUF VS. ITO WARD- 3 (2) JA IPUR . 8 ISSUED BOGUS BILLS AND OBTAINED COMMISSION THEREON. IN THE OPINION OF THE AO THESE UNDISPUTED FACTS ESTABLISH ES THAT THE APPELLANT WAS INTENTIONALLY HIDING THE TRUE FACTS W HILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. THUS THE APPELLANT HAD FURNIS HED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. ACCORDING TO THE AO IN VIEW OF THE APPELLANTS ADMISSION AS CONTAINED IN T HE AFFIDAVIT THE FACT OF CONCEALMENT IS CLEARLY ESTAB LISHED. THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION IS THAT THE PENALTY NOTI CE DOES NOT SPECIFY AS TO WHETHER THE PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS WERE INITIATED FOR COMPUTATION OF INCOME OR FURNISHING I NACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. ON MERIT IT HAS BEEN ESTABL ISHED THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON ESTIMATE BASIS. I HAVE CONSIDERED ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND ALSO APPELLANT WRITTEN SUBMISSION. IN MY OPINION APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT THE NOTICE DOE S NOT INDICATE WHETHER THERE IS COMPUTATION OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IS JUST AN ATTEMPT TO HIDE BEHIND IRRELEVANT TECHNICALITIES IN ORDER TO ESCAPE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO ADDRESS THE CORE ISSUE . A COPY OF THE NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED SO AS TO ENABLE M E TO EVALUATE THE MERITS OF THIS CONTENTION. MOREOVER I N THE FACE OF TECHNICAL IRREGULARITIES IF ANY IT IS THE RESPO NSIBILITY OF THE APPELLANT TO SHOW THAT IT HAS SUFFERED SOME PREJUDI CE. IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT ANY KIND OF PREJUDICE HAS BEEN SUFFERED BY THE APPELLANT. HENCE I AM NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THIS ARGUMENT. WITH REGARD TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE THE APPELLAN TS CONTENTION IS THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON ES TIMATE BASIS AND AS SUCH PENALTY IS NOT LEVIABLE. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS ARGUMENT. IN THIS CASE THE APPELLANT ITSELF H AS ADMITTED THAT IT WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING BOGUS BILLS TO VAR IOUS PARTIES AND EARNING COMMISSION THEREON. SUCH ENTRY PROVIDERS ARE INDEED A BANE OF OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM AS IT ABETS EVASION OF TAX AND THUS JEOPARDIZES FINANCIAL SECURITY AND WELL BEING OF THE COMMON MAN. IN MY OPINION SUC H LAW BREAKING PEOPLE DO NOT DESERVE ANY LENIENCY. IN THI S CASE THE APPELLANT FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE DECLARED SALES AN D PURCHASES ETC. THUS THE AO WAS CONSTRAINED TO REJECT THE BOOK S OF ITA NO. 118/JP/2016 SHRI KUMUD CHAND JAIN HUF VS. ITO WARD- 3 (2) JA IPUR . 9 ACCOUNTS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE WAS NO O PTION BUT TO ESTIMATE INCOME. THUS THIS ESTIMATION HAS B EEN CAUSED BY APPELLANTS FAILURE TO PROVE ITS DECLARED ACCOUNTING RESULTS BY PRODUCING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND SUPPORTI NG EVIDENCE. THUS THE ESTIMATION IS A NATURAL COROLLA RY OF APPELLANTS OWN WRONG DOINGS. NO ONE CAN BE ALLOWED TO TAKE BENEFIT OF HIS OWN WRONG DOING AS IT IS AGAINS T THE SPIRIT OF LAW. FURTHER THERE ARE VARIOUS CASES WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PENALTY U/S 271(1) IS LEVIABLE EVEN IF T HE INCOME HAS BEEN ESTIMATED. SOME SUCH CASES ARE AS UNDER:- (I) ALLAHABD HIGH COURT CIT VS. SWAROOP COLD STORAGE 136 ITR 435 (II) MADRAS HIGH COURT AK BASHU SAHIB VS. CIT 108 ITR 736 (III) PATNA HIGH COURT CIT VS. K.D. ARORA 162 ITR 481 (IV) MADRAS HIGH COURT CIT VS. BALKRISHNA TEXTILES 193 ITR 361 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR LEVYIN G PENALTY U/S 271(1). AS THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INC OME AS WELL AS FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INC OME. ACCORDINGLY I UPHOLD THE AOS DECISION OF IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 2 08 396/-. THUS THIS GROUND OF APP EAL IS DISMISSED. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPEAL IN QUESTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 THEREFORE THE DECISION TA KEN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS IN THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 118/JP/2016 SHRI KUMUD CHAND JAIN HUF VS. ITO WARD- 3 (2) JA IPUR . 10 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 4.0 IN THE RESULT THE ABOVE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSE E ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 /10/ 2016 SD/- HKKXPUN ( BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 26/10/ 2016 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- M/S. KUMUD CHAND JAIN HUF JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO WARD- 3 (2) JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR ITAT JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 118/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR