JUDGMENT : The respondent assessee is not represented despite apparent service. The short question which has been sought to be urged by the department in this case is whether the Commissioner (Appeals) could have received fresh evidence in contravention of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and whether, despite such ground being urged before the appellate tribunal, the appellate tribunal could brush aside the same without any discussion on such score. It appears from the order impugned dated June 15, 2016 that two grounds in respect of two matters were canvassed before the appellate tribunal: the first relating to the addition of income of Rs.68,05,690/- received by the assessee as share application money; and, an addition of another amount of Rs.67,49,377/- on the ground that the previous balance-sheet of the assessee did not reflect such amount as the work in progress. The question sought to be raised in the present proceedings is confined to the second aspect before the appellate tribunal. On a query from this Court as to whether the ground under Rule 46A of the said Rules was taken before the appellate tribunal, advocate for the appellant refers to paragraph 2 of the order impugned. However, paragraph 2 of the order impugned refers to the objection under Rule 46A of the said Rules pertaining to the share application money. Paragraph 2 of the order impugned has nothing to do with the addition of income to the extent of Rs.67,49,377/- on account of work in progress. Indeed, the ground taken on account of addition of the amount claimed by the assessee as work in progress is reflected in paragraph 6 of the order impugned. However, paragraph 6 does not refer to the ground under Rule 46A of the said Rules being taken. In any event, Rule 46A of the said Rules permits additional evidence to be received by a Commissioner (Appeals) if the assessing officer had refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted or if the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the assessing officer. In the present case, a proprietorship concern had been taken over as a going concern by the assessee. Such proprietorship concern had a work in progress of value of Rs.67,49,377/- at the end of the year ended March 31, 2006. In the present case, a proprietorship concern had been taken over as a going concern by the assessee. Such proprietorship concern had a work in progress of value of Rs.67,49,377/- at the end of the year ended March 31, 2006. Though the relevant figure on account of work in progress was not reflected in the assessee's balance-sheet for the previous financial year, since the assessee took over the proprietorship concern as a going business in the next financial year, the balance-sheet of the proprietorship concern for the previous financial year became relevant. It was evident from the balance-sheet of the proprietorship concern that its closing balance for the previous financial year showed an amount of Rs.67,49,377/- as work in progress. Since there does not appear to have been any material irregularity committed by either the Commissioner (Appeals) or the appellate tribunal in taking on record a matter that was reflected from the records of the proprietorship concern taken over by the assessee as a going concern and since the ground under Rule 46A of the said Rules of 1962 does not appear to have been canvassed in such regard before the appellant tribunal, the question sought to be raised is of no relevance at the present stage. Accordingly, ITAT No.387 of 2016 and GA No.226 of 2017 are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.