S.N. SARAWGI HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 21(3)(2), MUMBAI

These appeals are filed by different assessees of same family/entity against different orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 23.11.2021 and 25.08.2021 for the A.Y. 2015-16.

Since the issues raised in both these appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed off by this consolidated order.

Brief facts of the case are, assessee is Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), filed its return of income on 24.08.2015 declaring total income of ₹.7,63,540/- and the same was processed u/s. 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) showing demand of ₹.1,391/-. The demand was raised due to non-granting of credit of advance tax of ₹.3,44,567/- as claimed by the assessee in return of income. Subsequently, assessee filed a rectification request before the jurisdictional Assessing Officer and the

Aggrieved with the above order assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and before the Ld.CIT(A), assessee raised grounds that Assessing Officer erred in not giving credit of advance tax of ₹.3,43,180/- paid by Religare Credit Advisors LLP on behalf of the assessee and at the same time another ground was raised for treating the interest income declared by the assessee from Religare Credit Advisors LLP as taxable income instead of exempt income.

After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld.CIT(A) remitted the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee towards advance tax from Form – 26AS. Since CIT(AU) does not have access to the assessee’s Form – 26AS, whereas Assessing Officer has access to verify from Form – 26AS. Accordingly, Assessing Officer was directed to give the credit after due verification of Form – 26AS. Subsequently, the assessee followed the same with the Assessing Officer, however, Assessing Officer rejected the same while order giving effect of the order of Ld.CIT(A) with the observation that there is no credit available in Form – 26AS. Page No. | 3

Aggrieved with the above order assessee preferred an appeal before us and raised following grounds in its appeal: -

At the outset, we observe that assessee has preferred this appeal before us with a delay of 426 days and filed delay condonation and affidavit before us. After considering the same we are inclined to condone the delay based on the reasons submitted before us in the form of affidavit and found to be reasonable. Accordingly, we proceed to hear the appeal on merits.

At the time of hearing, Ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice the facts already available on record and also filed copy of return of income wherein assessee has declared interest income which includes interest from Religare Credit Advisors LLP of ₹.11,06,375/- along with other rental income and other sources. Assessee also filed a letter from

On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that assessee has participated in the investment Scheme-I of Religare Credit Advisors LLP and assessee has earned interest income of ₹.11,06,375/-. After careful consideration of letter submitted by Religare Credit Advisors LLP we observe that they have represented u/s.160(1)((iv) of the Act as a Trustee and declared the income earned on behalf of assessee and paid the due tax. From the declaration submitted by the Religare Credit Advisors LLP, the income earned by the assessee was declared as the income of the above LLP and paid the due tax on behalf of the assessee. It clearly shows that income of the assessee was already declared by them and paid the due tax on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, it is not proper on the part of the assessee to declare the same in one more time in their return of income and claim the advance tax paid by the Religare Credit Advisors LLP as credit. Since the income was Page No. | 5

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Coming to the appeal in the case of “Prashant Sarawgi HUF” in ITA.No. 942/Mum/2023 for the A.Y. 2015-16, since facts in this appeal are mutatis mutandis to the case of “S.N. Sarawagi HUF” for the A.Y.2015-16, therefore the decision taken in “S.N. Sarawagi HUF” for the A.Y. 2015-16 is applicable mutatis mutandis to this appeal also. Page No. | 6

To sum-up, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purpose.