Dismissing the appeal of the Revenue the Court held that  that the Commissioner (Appeals) had considered the aspect of additional evidence as objected to by the Assessing Officer after considering the explanation of the assessee that the assessee was an illiterate person and had studied up to fourth standard and he was not able to read in english, and therefore, the provisions of rule 46A(1) more particularly clause (b) thereof was complied with as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the Assessing Officer. All such evidence were corroborative and could not have been manipulated at that stage. The Assessing Officer had the opportunity to cross verify any information during remand proceedings but he had sent the remand report in a very routine manner. The independent corroborative evidence placed on record during the remand proceedings could not be ignored. There was no discrepancy in the sundry creditors accounts which could be added to the income of the assessee and hence the addition was deleted. The assessee being an illiterate person could not appear before the Assessing Officer and the appellate proceedings being the continuation of the assessment proceedings, the Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly permitted the assessee to produce the additional evidence in consonance with rule 46A.(AY. 2014-15)