Palanisamy Raghypathy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore
ITA 3372/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2016-17
Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 Mr. P. Palanisamy, 390, P.P. Nilayam, 9Th Main I Cross, Hal Ii Stage, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru-560 038. [Pan:Adspp 9150 F] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. (प्रयथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.219, 220, 221 & 222/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.200, 201 To 208/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2011-12 To 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3388 To 3392/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 M/S. P.P. Financers, 24, Radha Avenue, 3Rd Street, Valsaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. [Pan: Aahfp 0288 L] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. (प्रयथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.215 To 218 & 223/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19 & 2014-15 Mr. P. Kuppuchamy, No.80/7, 17Th Cross, 16Th Main Road, Btm Layout, Ns Palya, Bangaluru-560 076. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan: Ajzpp 4091 J] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (प्रयथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.224 & 225/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Mr. L. Karuppusamy, No.119, 18Th Cross, Lakshmipuram, Ulsoor, Bangaluru-560 008. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan: Apqpk 4872 F] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (प्रयथ/Respondent)
…on, not specific to each assessment year, and further, it does not specify as to which seized material pertains to which assessment year. 8.1 In support, reliance was placed on the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in Pushpanjali Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [128 ITR (Trib) 201 (Del)], with specific reference to paragraph 23, wherein it was held that a satisfaction note which is general, vague, and casual, without recording particulars of escapement of income, quantification thereof, or linkage to a specific assessment year, reflects lack of proper application of mind and is therefore bad in law, rendering the co…
