Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member. - These three appeals preferred by the assessee are directed against the different orders passed by the CIT(A)-V, Hyderabad and pertains to assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 with regard to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

2. Brief facts of the issue are that the assessee is an individual and filed its return of income originally as follows:

3. There was a survey conducted under section 133A of the Act in the premises of the assessee on 15-11-2006 and one undisclosed bank account found wherein certain deposits has been made which had escaped from assessment:

The total cash deposits on various dates during the period from :

4. Later a notice was issued under section 148 was issued and the assessment years were reopened for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06. For the assessment years 2004-05 the assessee filed revised return on 11-12-2007 declaring income at Rs. 23,70,950 and once again on 27-12-2007 filed revised return declaring income at Rs. 35,13,770. Which covers peak cash deposit of Rs. 18 lakhs and difference in valuation in the construction of building at Megha Hills, Guttala Village, Begumpet.

5. For the assessment year 2005-06, the assessee filed original return on 27-9-2005 admitting income of Rs. 7,91,562 and agricultural income of Rs. 1.95 lakhs. After survey, Notice under section 148 was issued on 14-8-2007. The assessee filed revised return on 11-12-2007 admitting income of Rs. 30,20,120 including additional income offered at Rs. 22,68,560 towards peak deposit in bank account and difference towards cost of construction of property. Again, on 27-12-2007 filed a revised return admitting income of Rs. 18,77,297 after apportioning difference in valuation between the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06.

6. For the assessment year 2006-07, the assessee filed return of income on 21-7-2006 at Rs. 13,37,415 and agricultural income of Rs. 2,36,500 there is no notice under section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment of these assessment years as follows:

7. Further, the Assessing Officer levied penalty in all these assessment years for concealing the income with regard to amount lying in the bank accounts of the assessee as follow