SHARIKA ESTHER SHARMA,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 17, DELHI, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI

BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.4761/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sharika Esther Sharma, Vs. ACIT 30, Dera Mandi Road, Central Circle -17 Mehrauli, New Delhi Delhi PAN No.ACJPS8834K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Bhopal Singh, CIT DR

Date of hearing: 23/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 07/10/2026

ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 27.02.2026 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-27, Delhi for the A.Y. 2017-18. Grounds of appeal are as under :-

1 | P a g e

GROUND No.1 FIRST APPELLATE ORDER US 250 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the first appellate order under section 250 of the Act which is arbitrary unjustified and bad in law 2 The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is based merely on conjectures and assumptions rendering the same noncompliant with the law and procedure of reassessment under the Act. The Appellant prays that the first appellate order may kindly be quashed. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO I GROUND NO II ADDITION OF RS 200000 ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE BASED ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES 1On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CITA erred in confirming the addition of Rs 200000 made by the Ld AO on account of alleged unexplained household expenditure merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises by holding that the Appellant must have incurred expenditure in cash without bringing any factual material OR evidence on record 2The Ld CITA erred in sustaining the impugned addition without any cogent finding regarding the quantum nature OR mode of the alleged cash expenditure said to have been incurred by the Appellant 3The Appellant prays that the impugned addition of Rs 200000 having been made on conjectures and surmises be held as bad in law and may kindly be deleted. 3. GROUND NO III NONCONSIDERATION OF YOGA INCOME RECEIVED IN CASH AS SOURCE OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE 1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CITA erred in not considering that the Appellant was earning income from conducting Yoga classes 2 | P a g e

which was received in cash and the said cash receipts were duly utilised by the Appellant towards meeting the household expenditure of the family 2The Ld CITA erred in not appreciating that the income earned out of conducting Yoga classes was wholly expended towards household expenses of the family and consequently no separate cash withdrawal from the bank account was required to be made by the Appellant for the said purpose 3The Appellant prays that the source of household expenditure being duly explained out of Yoga income received in cash the impugned addition of Rs 200000 be deleted. INCOME OF RS 329130 ALREADY DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IOn the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CITA erred in not considering that the Appellant had already disclosed income of Rs 329130 on account of Yoga classes in the Return of Income filed us 148 of the Act for the year under consideration 2The Ld CITA erred in not appreciating that the addition sustained to the extent of Rs 200000 us 69A of the Act amounts to a double addition inasmuch as the Appellant had already offered the corresponding income of Rs 329130 to tax in her Return of Income which is more than sufficient to explain the alleged household expenditure 3The Appellant prays that the impugned addition of Rs 200000 being a double addition be held as bad in law and may kindly be deleted GROUND NO V NO STATUTORY OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR YOGA INCOME 10n the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CITA failed to consider that the Appellant being engaged in conducting Yoga classes was not statutorily required to maintain 3 | P a g e

books of account under Rule 6F of the Income Tax Rules 1962 5 in respect of Yoga income of Rs 329130 earned during the year under consideration 2The Ld CITA erred in not appreciating that non maintenance of books of account WHARE there is no statutory obligation to maintain the same cannot by itself justify an addition on account of alleged unexplained household expenditure 3The Appellant prays that the impugned addition of Rs 200000 be deleted on this ground also. GROUND NO VI ADDITION OF RS 14356832 WITHOUT CONSIDERING EVIDENCES FURNISHED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IOn the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CITA erred in confirming the addition of Rs 14356832 without considering the evidences duly furnished by the Appellant during the course of 6 assessment proceedings explaining the sources of funds advanced as loan to her then husband 2The Ld CITA erred in mechanically confirming the impugned addition without independently appreciating the documentary evidences placed on record by the Appellant 3 The Appellant prays that the impugned addition of Rs 14356832 be held as bad in law and may kindly be deleted. Rs. 11245153

GROUND NO VII NONAPPRECIATION OF SOURCES OF FUNDS ADVANCED AS LOAN TO THENHUSBAND 10n the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CITA failed to appreciate the sources of funds aggregating to the impugned amount comprising of the following aRs 4718000 being redemption proceeds of Fixed Deposit Receipts b Rs 4885841 being surrender 4 | P a g e

proceeds of HDFC Life ULIP policy c Rs 4752991 being redemption proceeds of FDR with HDFC Bank Rs 45000 withdrawn from HDFC Bank Loan Account Rs 750000 received as gift from Shri Rahul Bhat f Loans of Rs 35000 and Rs 50000 received from Shri Rahul Bhat in HDFC Savings Bank Account 2 The Ld CITA failed to appreciate that each of the aforesaid sources is duly supported by documentary evidences such as bank statements FDR redemption advices ULIP surrender intimation gift confirmation and loan confirmation all of which were placed on record 3 The Appellant prays that the sources of the loan advanced to the then husband being duly explained the. GROUND NO VIII ERRONEOUS RELIANCE ON STATEMENT RECORDED US 1324 OF THE ACT MADE UNDER STRESS 1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CITA failed to appreciate that in the statement recorded us 1324 of the Act the Appellant while under stress had inadvertently mentioned that she had no personal earnings OR savings 2 The Ld CITA failed to appreciate that the said statement having been recorded under stress and being contrary 8 to the documentary evidences and other material on record ought Rs. 0 not to have been relied upon to the prejudice of the Appellant 3 It is settled position of law that a statement recorded under stress duress OR coercion has no evidentiary value and cannot in.

5 | P a g e

The main addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is for funds advanced as loan to assessee’s husband. The assessee has taken a ground that the addition of Rs.1,43,56,832/- was made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) without considering any evidences furnished by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. In another ground of appeal, the assessee has brought it on record that all the sources of funds aggregating to the loan amount have been filed by the assessee but neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) have considered it and they have simply made addition on the same.

6 | P a g e

fit and if necessary. The Ld. CIT(A) may get remand report from the AO before passing of the appellate order. The assessee is also directed to file all the necessary documents and details before the Ld. CIT(A) at the earliest. 5. In the result, the asessee’s appeal is remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) and the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the court on 07.10.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

[MADHUMITA ROY] [KRINWANT SAHAY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:07.10.2026 Neha, Sr. PS