Assessee filed return of income electronically declaring income. Its case was selected for scrutiny and various notices including show cause notice were issued upon assessee, however, assessee failed to comply. Assessing Officer made additions on account of sundry creditors under section 68 and cash deposits under section 69 as unexplained investment.  Further, he had also made an addition on account of difference in 26AS statement and return of income on ground that assessee failed to file details called for.  Commissioner (Appeals) upheld addition made by Assessing Officer. Tribunal held that  Assessing Officer had not taken any proactive steps as per section 133(6) or 131 to collect information directly from sundry creditors. Further, Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider documents filed by assessee under rule 46A and had not adjudicated each and every ground raised by assessee on merits.  Since Commissioner (Appeals) had not passed a speaking order for rejecting additional evidences filed by assessee and Assessing Officer having failed to carry out necessary investigations and to understand facts in totality, impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is   set aside for de novo adjudication. (AY. 2014-15)