Held, that the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in admitting the additional evidence and in failing to record reasons therefor. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee had not raised any additional ground but only furnished additional evidence. The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that he had admitted additional grounds was factually incorrect. The Commissioner (Appeals) had not dealt with the exceptional clauses (a) to (d) of rule 46A. He had accepted the additional evidence in violation of rule 46A, which was not tenable in law. He had erred in admitting that the source of investment for purchase of shares of company F, was the husband of the assessee and also erred in admitting that the source of investment shown as opening balance and other credits in the bank account was held jointly. Even in the remand proceedings the Assessing Officer did not get opportunity to verify the bank details submitted by the assessee and, hence, it was in complete violation of rule 46A. As a result, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the documents and details.(AY. 2011-12).