COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. MUKTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.T.A. Nos. 513/2008, 512/2008, 514/2008, 664/2008, 667/2008, 670/2008, 673/2008 and 511/2008 are directed against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench B dated 13.12.2007 passed in ITA Nos. 659 to 666/B/06. The above appeals pertain to different persons of the same joint family for different assessment years as detailed below: SN ITA NO. ITA NO. Asst. Year Appellant Respondent 1 ITA 667/2008 659/B/06 2001-02 DCIT, Central Cir. -2(3) Blore. ShriS. Kumar Blore. 2 ITA 664/2008 660/B/06 2001-02 DCIT, Central Cir. -2(3) Blore. ShriS. Kumar (HUF), Blore. 3 ITA 670/2008 661/B/06 2001-02 ShriV.N. Sridhar, Blore. 4 ITA 673/2008 662/B/06 2003-04 ShriV.N. Sridhar, Blore. 5 ITA 511/2008 663/B/06 2001-02 Smt. Muktha Sridhar, Blore. 6 ITA 512/2008 664/B/06 2002-03 Smt. Muktha Sridhar, Blore 7 ITA 513/2008 665/B/06 2003-04 Smt. Muktha Sridhar, Blore 8 ITA 514/2008 666/B/06 2001-02 Smt. Sathyavathi, Blore. ITA Nos. 565, 567, 570, 572, 574, 589, 592, 594, 598, 600, 601, 602, 605, 609, 611, 614, 617, 621, 622, 625, 628, 632, 630, 637, 641, 596, 582 of 2008 are directed against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench B dated 13.12.2007 passed in ITA Nos.721 to 747/Bang/06, the details of which are as under: ITA NO. Before the High Court ITA NO. Before the Tribunal Asst. Year Appellant Respondent ITA 582/2008 721/Bang/06 2000-01 The DCIT, Central Circle-2(3) Blore. ShriH.N. Nagaraj (HUF), Bangalore. ITA 565/2008 722/Bang/06 2001-02 The DCIT, Central Circle-2(3) Blore. ShriH.N. Nagaraj (HUF), Bangalore. ITA 567/2008 723/Bang/06 2002-03 -do- ShriH.N. Nagaraj (HUF), Bangalore. ITA 570/2008 724/Bang/06 2003-04 -do- ShriH.N. Nagaraj (HUF), Bangalore. ITA 572/2008 725/Bang/06 2001-02 -do- ShriH.N. Nagaraj (Ind.), Bangalore. ITA 574/2008 726/Bang/06 2002-03 -do- ShriH.N. Nagaraj (Ind.), Bangalore. ITA 589/2008 727/Bang/06 2003-04 -do- ShriH.N. Nagaraj (Ind.), Bangalore. ITA 592/2008 728/Bang/06 2000-01 -do- ShriV.N. Sridhar (HUF) Bangalore, ITA 596/2008 729/Bang/06 2001-02 -do- ShriV.N. Sridhar (HUF) Bangalore, ITA 600/2008 730/Bang/06 2002-03 -do- ShriV.N. Sridhar (HUF) Bangalore, ITA 601/2008 731/Bang/06 2003-04 -do- ShriV.N. Sridhar (HUF) Bangalore, ITA 605/2008 732/Bang/06 2001-02 -do- Smt. Vani Shashindra, Bangalore. ITA 614/2008 733/Bang/06 2002-03 -do- Smt. Vani Shashindra, Bangalore. ITA 611/2008 734Bang/06 2003-04 -do- Smt. Vani Shashindra, Bangalore. ITA 617/2008 735/Bang/06 2001-02 -do- ShriV.N. Manjunath, Bangalore ITA 621/2008 736/Bang/06 2002-03 -do- ShriV.N. Manjunath, Bangalore ITA 625/2008 737/Bang/06 2003-04 -do- ShriV.N. Manjunath, Bangalore ITA 594/2008 738/Bang/06 2000-01 -do- Sri. N. Shashindra (HUF) Bangalore. ITA 632/2008 739/Bang/06 2001-02 -do- Sri. N. Shashindra (HUF) Bangalore. ITA 598/2008 740/Bang/06 2002-03 -do- Sri. N. Shashindra (HUF) Bangalore. ITA 609/2008 741/Bang/06 2003-04 -do- Sri. N. Shashindra (HUF) Bangalore. ITA 622/2008 742/Bang/06 2001-02 -do- Sri. N. Shashindra Bangalore. ITA 602/2008 743/Bang/06 2002-03 -do- Sri. N. Shashindra Bangalore. ITA 628/2008 744/Bang/06 2003-04 -do- Sri. N. Shashindra Bangalore. ITA 630/2008 745/Bang/06 2001-02 -do- Smt. N. Nagaratna, Bangalore ITA 637/2008 746/Bang/06 2002-03 -do- Smt. N. Nagaratna, Bangalore ITA 641/2008 747/Bang/06 2003-04 -do- Smt. N. Nagaratna, Bangalore

(2.) IN the above batch of appeals, the following substantial question of law have been formulated for adjudication: 1. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, is not sustainable in law in respect of an amount shown as gift received in the original return, which was found to be incorrect as per material detected in the search and was the undisclosed income of the assessee? 2. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in deleting the penalty levied as the assessee filed revised return declaring part of searched income in order to buy peace with the department so that penalty will not be levied by relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in 251 ITR 9 confirming the judgment of M.P. High Court in 241 ITR 124 which was applicable to assessment year 1983-84 to 1986-87 based on the law declared by Apex Court in 168 ITR 705, which is held to be not good law after insertion of Explanation to Sec.271(1)(C) of the Act by the Apex Court in 251 ITR 99?

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