ORDER : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Heard learned senior standing counsel Mr.Varun K.Patel with learned advocate Mr.Dev Patel for the petitioner. 2. By this Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), the appellant-Revenue has proposed the following substantial questions of law arising out of the order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad-‘B’ Bench (for short “the Tribunal”) in ITA No.1640/Ahd/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15. “(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITAT has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.5,30,94,465/-, being bogus creditors, though the CIT(A) had clearly violated the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, while admitting additional evidence? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the learned ITAT is erroneous, illegal and ex-facie perverse, because the learned ITAT has not appreciated the fact that, the assessee had not been able to produce bills and evidence providing the purchase as genuine during the course of remand proceedings?” 3.The brief facts of the case are that the assessee who is an individual and proprietor of one M/s. Nishra Enterprise dealing in waste craft paper filed return of income for the year under consideration on 29.11.2014, declaring the total income of Rs.3,55,840/-. 4. The return was taken up for scrutiny assessment due to large amount of sundry creditors with respect to turnover of the assessee compared to the preceeding year as the assessee claimed sundry creditors amounting to Rs.6,15,17,916/- for the year under consideration whereas for the previous assessment year 2013-14 the creditors were only of Rs.84,23,451/-. 5. Though the assessee was given more than ten opportunities, did not respond to the notices and therefore it was not possible for the Assessing Officer to verify the genuineness of the sundry creditors. The Chartered Accountant had certified that the creditors are subject to confirmation as reported in para 3(a) of the Audit Report in 3CD Form. The Assessing Officer therefore framed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 144 of the Act by making an addition of Rs.5,30,94,465/- being the difference between the outstanding balance of the sundry creditors as on 31.03.2015 and 31.03.2014, which was the net increase in creditors by treating the same as bogus creditors. 6. The Assessing Officer therefore framed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 144 of the Act by making an addition of Rs.5,30,94,465/- being the difference between the outstanding balance of the sundry creditors as on 31.03.2015 and 31.03.2014, which was the net increase in creditors by treating the same as bogus creditors. 6. Being aggrieved by the Order passed by the Assessing Officer, the respondent assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short “CIT (A)”) explaining that the assessee was an illiterate person and was not aware about the hearing notices issued by the Assessing Officer resulting into the ex-parte assessment order. Before the CIT (A), the assessee explained the increase in sales, debtors, closing stock and creditors as per the balance sheet and contended that the Assessing Officer ignored the increase in sales, closing stock but only picked up the creditors amount and made addition as bogus creditors without any justification. 7. The assessee also furnished before the CIT(A) the copies of accounts of each creditor from the books of the assessee and contra accounts with the address and PAN Number which were duly reconciled by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) admitted these documents as such documents go to the root of the controversy involved and called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer. 8. The Assessing Officer in remand report objected to the acceptance of the additional evidences and also stated that the assessee failed to produce supporting bills/ vouchers for the purchases made from the various parties and did not file bank details and proof of payments. In rejoinder, the assessee furnished copies of audited accounts, sample purchase bills, contra accounts with bank statements. The CIT(A) after considering the evidences produced on record before it, deleted the addition by allowing the appeal. 9. Being aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the appeal by observing as under: “7.We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record including the Paper Book filed by the assessee. The case of the Revenue is that in spite of 10 hearing notices, the assessee failed to appear and explain the case of the assessee before Assessing Officer which resulted in passing exparte assessment order. The case of the Revenue is that in spite of 10 hearing notices, the assessee failed to appear and explain the case of the assessee before Assessing Officer which resulted in passing exparte assessment order. During the appellate proceedings, of the assessee explained his illiteracy and thereby filed the details of Audited accounts; HDFC Bank account transaction details, Confirmation of accounts from M/s. Kingston Peptech P. Ltd. and M/s. Om Enterprise and copies of sample sales bills from the sellers. One such sample invoice namely Invoice No. 192 dated 12-10-2013 for a sum of Rs.1,43,382/- with proper VAT Tax and dispatch through Truck No. GJ-1CT-6161 to Badol which is available at Page 61 of the Paper Book. 7.1. Similarly in the case of M/s. Om Enterprise Invoice No. 79 dated 24-10- 2013 for a sum of Rs.76,561/- which is inclusive VAT Tax with proper Sales Tax Registration Number of the seller. Further perusal of the HDFC Bank account makes it very clear regular cheque payments were made by the assessee through the continuation of the business with Kingston Peptech P. Ltd. as well as the Om Enterprise and various other suppliers. After considering the above material on record, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made on account of bogus sundry creditors of Rs. 5.3 crores, which is in our considered opinion does not require any interference. Further the purchasers are supported by bills entries in books of account and made payment by cheques. The Assessing Officer did not find any inflation in purchase price, but the addition made only on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish the details during the ex parte assessment proceedings. 8. The above view of ours are supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Nangalia Fabrics (P.) Led. (cited supra) as follows: “Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Cash credit [Unverifiable purchases Assessing Officer found that purchases made by assessee could not be verified as parties were untraceable- Accordingly, he made addition to assessee's income However, Tribunal held that since purchases were supported by bills, entries were made in books of account and payment was made by cheque, addition should have to be deleted - Whether issue being based on facts, required no consideration Held, Yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee)" 8.1. Respectfully following the above Jurisdictional High Court judgment, we have no hesitation in confirming the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Thus the grounds raised by the Revenue are devoid of merits and the same is hereby rejected.” 10. Learned senior standing counsel Mr.Patel for the Revenue submitted that the CIT(A) could not have admitted the additional evidence as per the provisions of Rule 46A (2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (for short “the Rules”) as the assessee has not furnished any sufficient cause for not submitting the evidence and had remained absent in the assessment proceedings though sufficient opportunity was given and thereafter could not have produced any evidence before the CIT(A) without justifying as to why the assessee did not respond to the notices issued and ten opportunities given by the Assessing Officer. 10.1. It was further submitted that on merits also, the Assessing Officer has objected to the claim of the assessee as the assessee failed to furnish the bills of the purchases and the bank statements before the Assessing Officer so as to enable the Assessing Officer to verify the genuineness of the creditors. 11. In view of the above contentions we have perused the order passed by the CIT(A) wherein it is observed as under: “Decision: 5. I have carefully considered the assessment order, grounds of appeal raised and submission of the appellant along with comments in remand report and rejoinder filed by the appellant. The AO has objected to acceptance of additional evidences. The para 3.1 of the remand report is reproduced as under: "3.1 As additional evidences assessee has submitted the ledger accounts of Kingston Peptech P. Ltd. and Om enterprise from its own books of accounts as well as from the books of Kingston Peptech P. Ltd. and Om enterprise. From the verification of same it has been ascertained that assessee had not produced the supporting bills/vouchers for the purchases made from the above mentioned parties. It has also been found that on some dates assessee had made payments but had not furnished banks details/proof of payments. Moreover assessee had not furnished the Audit Report along with Balance Sheet and P & LA/c of Kingston Peptech P. Ltd. and Om enterprise. It has also been found that on some dates assessee had made payments but had not furnished banks details/proof of payments. Moreover assessee had not furnished the Audit Report along with Balance Sheet and P & LA/c of Kingston Peptech P. Ltd. and Om enterprise. Therefore, only from the ledger account of concerned creditors, the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors is not established." On the other hand the appellant has filed all documents as per paper book in 99 pages and stating as under: "Merits: 3.3. The learned AO while submitting the remand report stated that the assessee did not produce the supporting evidences. In fact, it is the duty of the AO to issue notice to the assessee to furnish the supporting evidences. In the absence of any such notice, it is not proper to take a view that in the absence of supporting evidences, the addition should be sustained. The assessee now furnishes the supporting evidences as under: (a) Audited Accounts (b) Purchase Bills from Kingston Peptech P. Ltd. and M/s. Om Enterprise. (c) The copy of accounts of Kingston Peptech P. Ltd. from the books of M/s. Nishra Enterprise le. assessee's books and the copy of Accounts of M/s. Nishra Enterprise from the books of Kingston Peptech P. Ltd. duly signed and confirmed by the partyfor A.Y. 2015-2016 with Book statements to show that the payment is made. (d) The copy of accounts of M/s. Om Enterprise from the books of M/s. Nishra Enterprise i.e. assessee's books and the copy of Accounts of M/s. Nishra Enterprise from the books of M/s. Om Enterprise duly signed and confirmed by the party for A.Y. 2015-2016 with Bank statements to show that the payment is made. 3.1 Further, it may please be noted that the sales, debtors and stocks as per Balance Sheet as on 31-03-2014 is as under: Particulars A.Y.2013-2014 A.Y.2014-2015 Sales 1,42,40,576 6,04,58,664 Debtors 87,52,605 5,04,62,195 Closing Stock 7,735 1,16,42,577 Creditors 84,23,451 6,15,17,916 3.2 From the above, it is seen that the increase in creditors is due to corresponding increase in sales, debtors and closing stock. The AO has ignored this and picked up only creditors. This is not best judgment. 4. The chart is also given as under: SN Name of Party Address Amount Rs. The AO has ignored this and picked up only creditors. This is not best judgment. 4. The chart is also given as under: SN Name of Party Address Amount Rs. Confirmation PAN 01 Kingston Peptech P.Ltd. Survey No.172 Kotwad-Sonasan Road Post; Sonasan Ta.Prantij, Dist S.K. 5,32,62,380 In the form of contra account duly signed by creditor AADCK574 3A 02 M/s. Om Enterprise Javahar Market, Ahmedabad Road, Dehgam-382305 82,55,537 In the form of contra account duly signed by creditor ASTPP841 2G Total: 6,15,17,917 Less: Opening Sundry Creditors 84,23,451 As per Assessment Order 5,30,94,465 As stated in the Table, the contra accounts are forming part of paper book. The few bills for the purchase with the payment by account payee cheque shown in the bank statement are forming part of paper book. 5. From the above, it is clear that the creditors which are added by the AO are genuine and therefore the same should be allowed. Your honour is therefore prayed to allow the appeal." The judicious decision can only be arrived if the facts of the case are seen and appreciated. In this case, the appellant has in his possession the report u/s 44AB dated 28-11-2014, copy of return of income filed by the creditors, the PAN and full addresses of the creditors, copy of account of creditors in the books of account of appellant and the proof that the appellant has continuous trading relationship with the creditors. All such evidences are corroborative and cannot be manipulated at this stage. The AO had opportunity to cross verify any information if he had desired during remand proceedings but chose the path of least resistance and sent remand report in a very routine manner. The independent corroborative evidences placed on record during remand proceedings cannot be ignored. The ratio in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. 187 ITR 688 (SC) is applied to give fresh look once again to the evidences contained in paper book on record. In my opinion, there is no discrepancy in the sundry creditors which can be added to the taxable income of the appellant. The addition of Rs. 5,30,94,465/- is hereby deleted. The ground no. 1 is allowed. 5.1 Ground no. 2 is about the provisions u/s 144 and applicability. The additional evidences have already been considered during remand proceedings. Both AO and appellant have taken hard stand on the issue. The addition of Rs. 5,30,94,465/- is hereby deleted. The ground no. 1 is allowed. 5.1 Ground no. 2 is about the provisions u/s 144 and applicability. The additional evidences have already been considered during remand proceedings. Both AO and appellant have taken hard stand on the issue. Nevertheless the appellant does not have any grievance after the remand proceedings. Therefore, the ground no. 2 is hereby dismissed.” 12. The CIT(A) has considered the aspect of additional evidence as objected by the Assessing Officer and after considering the explanation of the assessee that the assessee was illiterate person and has studied upto fourth standard and he was not able to read English Language, we are of the opinion that the provision of Rule 46A(1) more particularly Sub-clause(b) thereof which reads as under is 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: “46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the [Deputy Commissioner] (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals), any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course of proceedings before the Assessing Officer, except in the following circumstances, namely :— (a) where the Assessing Officer has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted ; or (b) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the Assessing Officer ; or (c) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the Assessing Officer any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal ; or (d) where the Assessing Officer has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal. (2) No evidence shall be admitted under sub-rule (1) unless the [Deputy Commissioner] (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) records in writing the reasons for its admission. (2) No evidence shall be admitted under sub-rule (1) unless the [Deputy Commissioner] (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) records in writing the reasons for its admission. (3) The [Deputy Commissioner] (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall not take into account any evidence produced under sub-rule (1) unless the Assessing Officer has been allowed a reasonable opportunity— (a) to examine the evidence or document or to cross-examine the witness produced by the appellant, or (b) to produce any evidence or document or any witness in rebuttal of the additional evidence produced by the appellant. (4) Nothing contained in this rule shall affect the power of the [Deputy Commissioner] (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) to direct the production of any document, or the examination of any witness, to enable him to dispose of the appeal, or for any other substantial cause including the enhancement of the assessment or penalty (whether on his own motion or on the request of the Assessing Officer) under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 251 or the imposition of penalty under section 271. Form of appeal and memorandum of cross-objections to Appellate Tribunal.” 13. In view of the above provisions of Rule 46A of the Rules, 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 CIT(A) has rightly permitted the assessee to produce the additional evidence in consonance with the Rule 46A of the Rules. 14. In view of the foregoing reasons, no question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.