ITO-22(1)(6), MUMBAI, MUMBAI V. ARCIL RETAIL LOAN PORTFOLIO-001-D TRUST, MUMBAI

ITA 7211/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by the Revenue against the orders of the CIT(A) concerning the Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio-001-C Trust and Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio-001-D Trust for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The primary legal issue was whether these trusts should be treated as Associations of Persons (AOPs) or as valid trusts under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had treated the trusts as AOPs, leading to the taxation of their income directly. However, the CIT(A) reversed this decision, recognizing the trusts as valid entities where the income is taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. The Tribunal's decision affirmed the CIT(A)'s ruling, referencing several precedents and the specific regulatory framework governing securitization trusts in India.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847493 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Mumbai
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2025
• Other Referred Cases: ARCIL Retail Loan Portfolio 001 A Trust vs. ITA No.4252/Mum/2025, Scheme A1 of ARCIL CPS 002 XI Trust vs. ITA No.2293/Mum/2018, ARCIL AARF-I-1 Trust vs. ITA No.7353/Mum/2019, Scheme A1 of ARCIL CPS 002 XIII Trust vs. ITA No.434/Mum/2017, ARCIL Retail Loan Portfolio 004 B Trust vs. ITA No.256/Mum/2024, ARCIL Retail Loan Portfolio 001 J Trust vs. ITA No.4199/Mum/2023, ARCIL Shalimar Wires Industries Ltd II Trust vs. ITA No.2909/Mum/2023, ARCIL Asset Reconstruction Fund II Trust vs. ITA No.3050/Mum/2023
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961, Securitization of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Securitization/Reconstruction Companies (Reserve Bank) Guidelines and Directions, 2003
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: JEET KAMDAR
• Keywords: Business income; Bad and doubtful debts; TDS; Search and seizure; Earning of tax free income; Maximum Marginal Rate; Revocable transfer
• Section: 143(3); 63; 10

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7210/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 ITO-22(1)(6) Room No.206, 2nd Floor, Income Tax Office, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 vs Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio-001- C Trust 10th Floor, The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Road, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028 PAN: AACTA2610E Appellant Respondent ITA No.7211/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 ITO-22(1)(6), Mumbai Room No.206, 2nd Floor, Income Tax Office, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 vs Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio-001- D Trust 10th Floor, The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Road, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028 PAN: AACTA3097M Appellant Respondent Present for: Assessee by : Shri Jeet Kamdar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 17.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 26.03.2026 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER These two appeals filed by the Revenue are arising out of order of CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide order no. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 7210 and 7211/Mum/2025 Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio-001-C Trust and Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio-001-D Trust A.Y. 2016-17 2 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080588580(1) dated 10.09.2025 and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080924962(1) dated 19.09.2025 against the assessment order passed by ITO Ward 21(1)(2), Mumbai u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 26.12.2018 and 24.12.2018, respectively for A.Y. 2016-17. 2. Grounds taken by the Revenue are as under: ITA 7210/Mum/2025 AY 2016-17 1. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the assesse as an Association of Persons (AOP), based on the nature of activities carried out by the assesse. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee is engaged in business activity with a clear profit motive and therefore cannot be regarded as a valid TRUST' for the purpose of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the entire addition of Rs.11,16,62,430/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of business income, income from other sources, disallowances of protection/preservation/insurance expenses, management fees, and interest income, without properly appreciating the facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assesse is a revocable trust entitled to the benefit of section 61 to 63 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the contributors (beneficiaries) have practically no control over the income arising from the activities of the fund, and that the contribution can be revoked only with the consent of contributors holding at least 75% of the units. Accordingly, the assesse is not a revocable trust within the meaning of 61 to 63 of the Act. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assesse trust and its beneficiaries have come together for a common purpose or common action with the objective of producing income, profits and gains and therefore, the assesse is laible to be categorised and assessed as an Association of Persons (AOP) in accordance with law. 5. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter or add a new ground which may be necessary.” ITA 7211/Mum/2025 AY 2016-17 “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the assesse as an Association of Persons (AOP), based on the nature of activities carried out by the assesse. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee is engaged in business activity with a clear profit motive and therefore Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 7210 and 7211/Mum/2025 Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio-001-C Trust and Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio-001-D Trust A.Y. 2016-17 3 cannot be regarded as a valid \"TRUST' for the purpose of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the entire addition of Rs. 14,55,46,182/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of business income, income from other sources, disallowances of protection/preservation/insurance expenses, management fees, and interest income, without properly appreciating the facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assesse is a revocable trust entitled to the benefit of section 61 to 63 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the contributors (beneficiaries) have practically no control over the income arising from the activities of the fund, and that the contribution can be revoked only with the consent of contributors holding at least 75% of the units. Accordingly, the assesse is not a revocable trust within the meaning of 61 to 63 of the Act. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assesse trust and its beneficiaries have come together for a common purpose or common action with the objective of producing income, profits and gains and therefore, the assesse is laible to be categorised and assessed as an Association of Persons (AOP) in accordance with law. 5. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 3. The above captioned appeals are for two different assessees. There is commonality in both the appeals for issue raised in the aforestated grounds of appeals. Both the assessees have similar structure and have engaged into similar transactions for which similar treatment was given by the authorities below, against which both the assessees are in appeal before the Tribunal. Owing to the commonality, both the appeals are taken up together for adjudication by passing this consolidated order. We take appeal in ITA No.7210/Mum/2025 as the lead case to draw the facts and make our observations and findings thereon which shall apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeal. 4. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that assessee is registered with Reserve Bank of India (RBI) u/s 3 of the Securitization of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) as a securitization company and reconstruction Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 7210 and 7211/Mum/2025 Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio-001-C Trust and Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio-001-D Trust A.Y. 2016-17 4 company (SC/RC). Assessee is a trust formed under the guidelines issued by RBI under the Securitization/Reconstruction Companies (Reserve Bank) Guidelines and Directions, 2003 (SRCGD). It was formed on 31.03.2008 and is in the business of asset reconstruction. Assessee derives income from asset reconstruction activity and handling of non- performing assets (NPAs) of banks and financial institutions. Assessee filed its return u/s 139(1) on 29.09.2016 reporting total income at NIL. In the return, it claimed exempt income of Rs.10,38,69,601/- and TDS of Rs.48,382/-. 4.1. In the course of assessment proceedings, assessee claimed that it is a private revocable determinate trust formed as per the guidelines issued by the RBI and its income/yield earned by it belongs to the beneficiary, who contributed the money in the trust. According to the assessee, taxability of income earned by it is governed by the provisions of section 61 to 63 of the Act according to which income arising in the hands of a trust is liable to be taxed in the hands of the beneficiary. In other words, assessee trust is merely a Pass Through Entity (PTE) and as such its receipts are not income of the trust. 4.2. While making the assessment, ld. AO noted that a trust has three constituents that is settlor, contributor and beneficiary and all the three constituents are independent and distinct whereas in the present case of the assessee trust, contributors are also the beneficiaries. According to him, the sole motive of the assessee trust is for the benefit of settlor/contributor. With this perspective, ld. AO held that assessee is only an Association of Persons (AOP) having Qualified Institutional Buyers (QIBs)/financial institutions as its members. According to him, assessee does not fall within the meaning of section 61 to 63 in its status as a trust but is an AOP to be taxed accordingly. He further noted that since the assets (Bad debts/NPAs) purchased are owned by it, the Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 7210 and 7211/Mum/2025 Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio-001-C Trust and Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio-001-D Trust A.Y. 2016-17 5 expenses for recovery of the bad debts/NPAs are incurred by it and the profit is also earned by it. On this premise, he observed that the profit is to be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. Further, he treated the interest and other income under the head ‘‘income from other sources’’ and not as business income. Ld. AO also disallowed the claim of expenses on account of protection, preservation and insurance expenses of Rs. 77,92,833/- by holding that assessee has failed to establish that it has actually incurred these expenses. Assessment was thus, completed with total income assessed at Rs.11,16,62,430/-. 5. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein detailed submissions were reiterated, describing the creation and the set-up of the assessee as a trust, modus operandi of business conducted by it and income generated thereon and its taxability. Detailed submissions were also made in respect of non-revocable nature of the assessee trust, its determinate nature and applicability of section 164 of the Act. Reference was also made to CBDT Circular No.13/2014 for highlighting the direction given by CBDT. After exhaustive deliberation on all these aspects of the issue, which led to addition in the hands of the assessee, ld. CIT(A) held that assessee is a valid trust and not an AOP. The beneficiaries are determinable and, therefore, section 164(1) does not apply. According to him, trust is not liable to be taxed in its own hands at maximum marginal rate but the income is to be assessed in the hands of beneficiaries, if applicable. He negated the conclusion of ld. AO of treating the trust as indeterminate. He further noted that SRCGD, 2003 and SARFAESI Act, 2002 under the aegis of RBI require a special purpose vehicle (SPV) undertaking which must be a trust and cannot be an AOP. Assessee is thus a valid trust formed in compliance with the regulatory requirements and classification of its structure as an AOP is not sustainable. With these findings, he further deleted the Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 7210 and 7211/Mum/2025 Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio-001-C Trust and Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio-001-D Trust A.Y. 2016-17 6 disallowance of management fees and protection, preservation expenses which have been held to be commercially necessary and contractually payable as per the trust structure and asset reconstruction process under SARFAESI Act. Treatment of interest and other income is also held to be income arising from business securitization and not incidental investments. Ld. CIT(A) while giving his findings placed reliance on the judicial pronouncements of the Co-ordinate Bench in several other identical cases. 6. In this regard, it is noted that there are several SPV securitization trusts which have been created under the aegis of RBI guidelines with similar name, except for variation in their series number. To understand this, in the present case before us, both the assessees have similar name except for that the assessee in ITA No.7210 has the series no. ‘C’ and the assessee in ITA No.7211 has the series no. as ‘D’. The issue before us has already been dealt by Co-ordinate Benches in several similar cases with assessees having different series numbers, some of which are listed below: Sr. No. Particulars 1 Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Mumbai, in the case of ARCIL Retail Loan Portfolio 001 A Trust for the Assessment Year 2016-17 (ITA No.4252/Mum/2025) 2 Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘G’ Bench, Mumbai, in the case of Scheme A1 of ARCIL CPS 002 XI Trust for the Assessment Year 2013-14 (ITA No.2293/Mum/2018) 3 Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Mumbai, in the case of ARCIL AARF-I-1 Trust for the Assessment Year 2013-14 (ITA No.7353/Mum/2019) Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 7210 and 7211/Mum/2025 Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio-001-C Trust and Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio-001-D Trust A.Y. 2016-17 7 Sr. No. Particulars 4 Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Mumbai, in the case of Scheme A1 of ARCIL CPS 002 XIII Trust for the Assessment Year 2009-10 (ITA No.434/Mum/2017) 5 Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Mumbai, in the case of ARCIL Retail Loan Portfolio 004 B Trust for the Assessment Year 2016-17 (ITA No.256/Mum/2024) 6 Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Mumbai, in the case of ARCIL Retail Loan Portfolio 001 J Trust (ITA No.4199/Mum/2023) and ARCIL Shalimar Wires Industries Ltd II Trust (ITA No.2909/Mum/2023) and ARCIL Asset Reconstruction Fund II Trust (ITA No.3050/Mum/2023) for the Assessment Year 2016-17 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the facts of the present case are pari materia with the facts considered in the aforesaid decisions, the statutory framework governing the assessee trust is identical, and there is no distinguishing feature brought on record by the Revenue. It was therefore contended that, following the principle of judicial consistency and discipline, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) deserves to be upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue be dismissed. 7.1. Per contra, ld. CIT DR relied heavily on the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer and submitted that ld. CIT(A) has erred in granting relief to the assessee without properly appreciating the statutory scheme of sections 61 to 63 of the Act. It was submitted that the assessee has wrongly claimed the benefit of revocable transfer, whereas, on a correct reading of the trust deed and surrounding facts, the trust does not satisfy the conditions prescribed under section 63 of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 7210 and 7211/Mum/2025 Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio-001-C Trust and Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio-001-D Trust A.Y. 2016-17 8 8. On the factual matrix before us, the issues raised by the Revenue in its appeal are no longer res integra as dealt in several judicial precedents listed above on identical fact pattern. We refer to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of ITO vs. Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio – 001 – A – Trust in ITA no.4252/Mum/2025, order dated 22.01.2026. 8.1. Since the issues raised by the Revenue in the present appeal have been exhaustively and elaborately dealt by the Co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid decision, there being no change in the factual matrix and the position of law, we draw our force from the observations and findings of the Co-ordinate Bench and extract the same below for ready reference: “14. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A), examined the Trust Deed placed on record, and analysed the statutory provisions and judicial precedents relied upon by both sides. The core issues that arise for adjudication are whether the assessee trust is liable to be assessed as an Association of Persons, whether the trust is revocable or irrevocable for the purposes of sections 61 to 63 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and consequently whether the income can be brought to tax in the hands of the trust by invoking section 164 of the Act. 15. Sections 61 to 63 form a self-contained code dealing with taxation of income arising from revocable transfers. The legislative scheme is explicit that where the transferor retains, directly or indirectly, the right to re-assume control over income or assets, such income cannot be assessed in the hands of an intermediary entity but must be taxed in the hands of the transferor. Section 63 deliberately adopts a wide and inclusive definition of both \"transfer\" and \"revocable transfer\". The statute does not prescribe that revocation must be unilateral, unconditional, or exercisable by an individual contributor. What is required is the existence of a contractual or legal mechanism for re-transfer of assets or re-assumption of power. This statutory scheme must be read harmoniously with the regulatory framework governing securitisation trusts, which are mandated under the SARFAESI Act and RBI Guidelines to operate as pass-through vehicles with beneficial ownership resting with Security Receipt Holders. 16. In this context, it is relevant to reproduce paragraph 9.4 of the order of the co-ordinate Bench in ITO v. Scheme Al of ARCIL CPS 002 XI Trust (ITA No. 2293/Mum/2018), wherein the learned CIT(A)'s reasoning, subsequently approved by the Tribunal, has been set out as under: Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 7210 and 7211/Mum/2025 Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio-001-C Trust and Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio-001-D Trust A.Y. 2016-17 9 \"9.4 Thus it is seen that under section 61 of the Act all income arising to any person by virtue of a revocable transfer of assets shall be chargeable to income-tax as the income of the transferor and shall be included in his total income. Section 62 of the Act provides that if a transfer is irrevocable for a specified period then section 61 will not apply. Section 63 defines as to what is 'transfer' and 'revocable transfer' for the purpose of sections 61 & 62 of the Act. It provides that: (a) a transfer shall be deemed to be revocable if: (i) it contains any provision for the re-transfer directly or indirectly of the whole or any part of the income or assets to the transferor, or (ii) it, in any way, gives the transferor a right to re-assume power directly or indirectly over the whole or any part of the income or assets; (b) 'transfer' includes any settlement, trust, covenant, agreement or arrangement. In this regard, 1 agree with the Ld. AR that the provisions of the I.T. Act nowhere state that if the transfer is 'explicitly revocable', the provisions of section 61 and section 63 would not apply. I have also carefully gone through the relevant clauses of the trust deed, as highlighted by the Ld. AR.\" 16.1 On a plain reading of Clause 5.2 of the Trust Deed, we find that the Security Receipt Holders are expressly conferred a right to revoke their contributions during the subsistence of the trust. Upon such revocation, the entire Trust Fund stands re-transferred to the Security Receipt Holders or their designees in proportion to their holdings, the scheme itself stands dissolved, the trustee ceases to act as trustee, and the Security Receipts stand extinguished. These provisions clearly satisfy both limbs of section 63(a), namely - i. a provision for re-transfer of assets, and ii. a right to re-assume power over the assets, albeit through a structured and collective mechanism. 17. The contention of the Revenue that revocation requiring consent of a specified percentage of holders negates revocability has been expressly rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench. In this regard, paragraph 18 of the order in ITO v. Scheme Al of ARCIL CPS 002 XI Trust (supra) is directly applicable and is reproduced as under: \"The Co-ordinate Bench further categorically rejected the precise objection raised by the Revenue in the present case, namely that revocation being conditional would render the transfer irrevocable, by observing as under in the same paragraph: Insofar, the view taken by the A.O, that as the revocation of the contributions is conditional upon the consent of the contributors holding 75% of the units, we are afraid that the same would not render the contributions as irrevocable.\" 18. The statutory position was further clarified by the Co-ordinate Bench in paragraph 7.6.4(iii) of the said order, (as reproduced from the Indian Corporate Loan and Securitisation Trust 2008 Series 14 in ITA no. ITA Nos.3986 & 4343/Mum/2013 dated 17.02.2017) which reads as under: Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 7210 and 7211/Mum/2025 Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio-001-C Trust and Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio-001-D Trust A.Y. 2016-17 10 The section does not say the deed of transfer must confer or vest an unconditional or an exclusive power of revocation in the transferor. What emerges from out of the above discussion is that the beneficiaries need to be identifiable and the Trust Deed must contain provisions that vest the power of revocation. There is nothing in the section to read that such a power should be unconditional. 19. In view of the above binding exposition of law, it is evident that section 63 does not mandate unilateral or unconditional revocation, and that a revocation mechanism embedded in the governing instrument is sufficient. Collective revocation does not dilute the revocable character of the transfer. 20. The learned CIT(A), in our view, has rightly relied upon the aforesaid co- ordinate Bench decisions, including paras 9.4, 18-19 and 7.6.4-7.6.5 of the decision in ITO v. Scheme Al of ARCIL CPS 002 XI Trust (ITA No. 2293/Mum/2018). 21. The Assessing Officer has further sought to assess the assessee as an Association of Persons, invoking section 164 on the premise that beneficiaries are indeterminate and that the trust carries on business with a profit motive. We are unable to agree with this approach. 22. Firstly, the formation of the assessee trust is statutorily mandated under the SARFAESI Act and RBI Guidelines. The trust is not a voluntary association of persons coming together for a common purpose, but a regulatory vehicle created for securitisation. The trustee functions independently and exclusively in accordance with the Trust Deed. There is no joint management, no sharing of responsibilities, and no common volition among Security Receipt Holders so as to constitute an AOP. 23. Secondly, the beneficiaries are clearly identifiable with reference to the Trust Deed, Offer Documents and contribution records, and their respective shares are determinable in proportion to Security Receipts held. Merely because the names of beneficiaries are not set out in the Trust Deed itself does not render the trust indeterminate. This position is well settled by judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee and accepted by the learned CIT(A). 24. Thirdly, once it is held that the trust is revocable, section 164 has no independent application. Sections 61 to 63 override section 164 in cases of revocable transfers. The Assessing Officer's attempt to apply section 164, therefore, proceeds on an incorrect legal premise. 25. The issue before us is no longer res integra. The Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal, in a series of decisions involving ARCIL securitisation trusts with identical trust deeds, have consistently held that such trusts are revocable within the meaning of section 63, income is not taxable in the hands of the trust, a cannot be assessed as an AOP. 26. In Scheme Al of ARCIL CPS 002 XI Trust (A.Y. 2013-14) and ARCIL CPS 002 XIII Trust (A.Y. 2009-10), the Co-ordinate Bench examined Clause 5.2 in detail and categorically rejected the Revenue's argument that conditional revocation negates section 63. Similar conclusions have been reached in Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 7210 and 7211/Mum/2025 Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio-001-C Trust and Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio-001-D Trust A.Y. 2016-17 11 ARCIL Retail Loan Portfolio trusts for A.Y. 2016-17, which are directly comparable to the present case. Judicial discipline requires that, in the absence of any distinguishing facts or contrary higher judicial authority, we follow the consistent view taken by co-ordinate Benches. The Revenue has not demonstrated any departure either in facts or in law. 27. The legislative intent to treat securitisation trusts as pass-through entities is further reinforced by later amendments and CBDT clarifications. The Finance Bill, 2016 expressly recognised securitisation trusts, including those set up by ARCs, as vehicles through which income is to be taxed in the hands of investors and not the trust. These amendments are clarificatory in nature, explaining the manner of taxation rather than altering the character of such trusts. They fortify the conclusion that, even prior to the amendments, the law recognised the trust as a conduit and not as a separate taxable entity in respect of cuck income. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold as under: 1. The assessee trust is a revocable trust within the meaning of sections 61 to 63 of the Act. 2. The income arising from the trust is not chargeable to tax in the hands of the trust, but in the hands of the Security Receipt Holders. 3. The assessee cannot be assessed as an Association of Persons, and section 164 has no application to the facts of the case. 4. The learned CIT(A) has correctly appreciated the statutory scheme, the Trust Deed, and the binding judicial precedents, and has rightly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 28. Accordingly, the order of the learned CIT(A) is affirmed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.” 8.2. From the perusal of the above we find that all the aspects of the issue as adopted by the ld. Assessing Officer (noted in para 4.2 above of this order) while making the impugned assessment have been elaborately and exhaustively met by the Coordinate Bench, holding in favour of the assessee. 8.3. In the conspectus of the above discussion, considering the factual matrix and respectfully following the judicial precedents referred above, findings arrived at by Ld. CIT(A) are affirmed, there being no material change in the facts and circumstances and nothing cogent brought on record to controvert the same. Grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 7210 and 7211/Mum/2025 Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio-001-C Trust and Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio-001-D Trust A.Y. 2016-17 12 9. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 10. Since the factual matrix are identical in ITA No.7211/Mum/2025 with that of ITA No.7210/Mum/2025, which we have already adjudicated upon in the above paragraphs, the findings of ld. CIT(A) in this case are also affirmed in terms of our above stated observations and findings. Grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 11. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 26 March, 2026. Sd/- /- Sd/- (C V Bhadang) (Girish Agrawal) President Accountant Member Dated: 26 March, 2026 Ankit, Sr.P.S Copy to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT BY ORDER, (Dy./Asst.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 7210 and 7211/Mum/2025 Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio-001-C Trust and Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio-001-D Trust A.Y. 2016-17 13 Printed from counselvise.com "