1. I.T.A. Nos. 513/2008, 512/2008, 514/2008, 664/2008, 667/2008, 670/2008, 673/2008 and are directed against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore B dated 13.12.2007 passed in ITA Nos. 659 to 666/B/06. The above appeals pertain to differen of the same joint family for different assessment years as detailed below:

ITA Nos. 565, 567, 570, 572, 574, 589, 592, 594, 598, 600, 601, 602, 605, 609, 611, 614, 622, 625, 628, 632, 630, 637, 641, 596, 582 of 2008 are directed against the common ord Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench ‘B’ dated 13.12.2007 passed in ITA No 747/Bang/06, the details of which are as under:

2. In the above batch of appeals, the following substantial question of law have been form adjudication:

1. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that the penalty levied by the A Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, is not sustainable in law in respect of an amount s gift received in the original return, which was found to be incorrect as per material detect search and was the undisclosed income of the assessee?

2. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in deleting the penalty levied as the asses revised return declaring part of searched income in order to buy peace with the departmen penalty will not be levied by relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in 251 ITR 9 confi judgment of M.P. High Court in 241 ITR 124 which was applicable to assessment year 19 1986-87 based on the law declared by Apex Court in 168 ITR 705, which is held to be not after insertion of Explanation to Sec.271(1)(C) of the Act by the Apex Court in 251 ITR 99?

3. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in accepting the explanation offered by the that the entire income detected was declared in the revised return which was factually incorre addition of entire undisclosed income was made by the Assessing Officer and consequently re perverse finding?

3. Apparently all the respondents – assesses had filed their returns under Section-139 of the to the assessment. From the records, it is noticed that a search of the premises was conduct Section-132 of the Act which commenced on 6.1.2004 and went up to 27.2.2004 when statem Section-132 of the Act came to be recorded and so also panchanama was drawn. Subseque search proceedings, the respondents – assesses filed revised returns twice surrendering th brought to tax, during the course of search. After assessment of revised returns, the a authority proceeded with the assessment and passed orders in the year 2005. Subsequentl proceedings came to be initiated. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax rejecting the taken by the respondents – assesses proceeded to impose of penalty on all the assesses un 271(1)(c).

4. Aggrieved by the order of imposing penalty, appeals came to be filed before the Commis Income Tax (appeals) for the above assessment years and the first appellate authority by order dated 16.5.2006 held that as the assesses proceeded to declare the entire amoun B income pursuant to search in order to buy peace with the department and for the reasons sta order, held levying of penalty was not justified. All the appeals filed by different assesses ca allowed and penalty order came to be set aside.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue went in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate T ITA NOs.659-666/B/06. The Tribunal held that penalty in respect of commission paid by the a for securing the gifts was leviable. However in respect of the gift amounts, which were found income of the assessees pursuant to the search, the Tribunal upheld the finding of the Commissioner by a common order dated 13.12.2007. Aggrieved by the said order, the Re before us raising the above substantial questions of law.

6. According to the learned counsel for the Revenue Mr. Sheshachala, once the amount show received in the original return was found to be incorrect as per material detected in the se which was undisclosed by the assessee i