JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by L. Narasimha Reddy J.-In this appeal preferred by Revenue, scope and ambit of rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962 (for short "the Rules"), falls for consideration: respondent is assessee under Income-tax Act (for short "the Act"). For assessment year 1998-99, respondent posted loss of Rs. 66,32,239. Assessing Officer passed order dated March 29, 2001, disbelieving version as to loss and recording finding to effect that respondent has income of Rs. 79,50,262 and levied tax thereon. Aggrieved by that, respondent filed appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IV, Hyderabad. In support of its contention, it placed some additional material/evidence before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Taking same into account, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) partly allowed appeal and permitted certain deductions. Department carried matter in appeal by filing I. T. A. No. 660/Hyd/2002 before Hyderabad Bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"). One of contentions urged before Tribunal was as to alleged violation of rule 46A of Rules by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Tribunal dismissed appeal through order dated January 24, 2003. Hence, this further appeal under section 260A of Act. Sri S. R. Ashok, learned senior standing counsel for Department, submits that receiving of evidence by Appellate Commissioner is not matter of course and it is only when conditions stipulated under rule 46A of Rules are complied with, that such evidence can be received and considered. He submits that no opportunity was given to Assessing Officer before documents were admitted and even after documents were admitted in evidence, consideration thereof was almost unilateral. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Delhi High Court in DIT v. Modern Charitable Foundation [2011] 335 ITR 105 (Delhi) and that of Madras High Court in CIT v. Subbu Shashank [2010] 327 ITR 577 (Mad). He contends that Tribunal did not take into account serious violation of rule 46A of Rules, which would have effect of vitiating very adjudication undertaken by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). None appeared for respondent. controversy is more about procedure adopted by Appellate Commissioner, than on merits of matter. Under Act, adjudication takes place, firstly, before authority of Department or quasi-judicial agency, which in turn is handled mostly by officials of Department, before matter reaches High Court. Certain traits of ordinary adjudication by courts, are stipulated for departmental appeals also. It is important to note that order of assessment is outcome of exercise undertaken by Department and aggrieved party, if at all, can be only assessee. Obviously for this reason, no appeal is provided to Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) against order of assessment, at instance of Department. principle that appeal is continuation of original proceedings gets attracted with added vigour as regards appeals before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In given case, assessee may be able to prove his contention in appeal, on basis of material, that formed part of record of Assessing Officer. In certain cases, he may feel like taking aid of other material just as it is done in civil appeals to buttress contention. Receiving of additional evidence by appellate authority for first time is not something new. However, it is not matter of course and it is circumscribed by certain conditions. general principle is that it is only when (i) party, who intends to adduce additional evidence at appellate stage, made effort to place that very material before original authority but did not succeed; or (ii) such material was not available during course of adjudication before original authority, that additional evidence can be received or admitted. Rule 46A of Rules deals with this aspect and it reads: 46A. Production of additional evidence before Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals).-(1) appellant shall not be entitled to produce before Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as case may be, Commissioner (Appeals), any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than evidence produced by him during course of proceedings before Assessing Officer, except in following circumstances, namely:- (a) Where Assessing Officer has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; or (b) Where appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing evidence which he was called upon to produce by Assessing Officer; or (c) Where appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before Assessing Officer any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal; or (d) Where Assessing Officer has made order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal. (2) No evidence shall be admitted under sub-rule (1) unless Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as case may be, Commissioner (Appeals) records in writing reasons fro its admission. (3) Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as case may be, Commissioner (Appeals) shall not take into account any evidence produced under sub-rule (1) unless Assessing Officer has been allowed reasonable opportunity- (a) to examine evidence or document or to cross-examine witness produced by appellant, or (b) to produce any evidence or document or any witness in rebuttal of additional evidence produced by appellant." From perusal of this rule, it becomes clear that rule-making authority maintained clear distinction between two concepts, viz., admission and consideration. While "admission" is subject to conditions stipulated in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-rule (1), "consideration" or taking into account of evidence so received, is dealt with under sub-rule (3). Broadly, procedure prescribed under this rule is comparable to one under rule 27 of Order 41 of Code of Civil Procedure. only difference is that under rule 27 of Order 41 of Code of Civil Procedure, separate application is required to be made seeking permission to adduce additional evidence at stage of appeal and it is only on consideration of objections that may be raised by opposite party, that additional evidence can be admitted. In case of appeals under Act, such procedure is not stipulated. Under rule 46A, all depends upon satisfaction of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as to admissibility of documents and no adversarial exercise needs to be undertaken at that stage. Once document is admitted as additional evidence, for first time at stage of appeal, Department is entitled to put forward its own contention or objection vis-a-vis same. Here again, two aspects become relevant. If additional evidence is in form of any document, Department shall be entitled to examine or to make its own scrutiny of same. On other hand, if evidence is in form of deposition of any witness, it shall be entitled to cross-examine him. first is provided for under clause (a) and second, under clause (b) of sub-rule (3). Independently, Department can adduce its own oral or documentary evidence to contradict or rebut additional evidence that was adduced by party, for first time, at stage of appeal. record in instant case does not disclose that Department has raised any objection whatever for additional evidence that was produced by respondent. On other hand, arguments were advanced with reference to additional evidence also and Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) dealt with same. In other words, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) took into account additional evidence duly taking into account, plea of Department. At any rate, it was not even urged that Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did not take into account any objection, if any, raised by Department, for additional evidence. nature of objection raised by appellant is evident from ground No. 5 of memorandum of grounds filed in I. T. A. No. 666/Hyd/2002, which reads: "5. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have afforded opportunity to Assessing Officer as per rule 47A(3) of Income-tax Rules before admitting fresh evidence." They wanted opportunity to be given before admitting fresh evidence. This plea does not derive any support from rule 46A of Rules. opportunity to be given to Department is only in context of "taking into account additional evidence" but not "admitting additional evidence". At cost of repetition, we observe that admission of additional evidence is prerogative of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and that in turn is circumscribed by clauses (a) to (d) of rule 46A(1) of Rules. Learned senior counsel is not able to point out as to which of conditions have been violated in process of adjudication by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Tribunal dealt with contention in detail and did not find any merit in plea of appellant. In Modern Charitable Foundation's case (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for appellant, Delhi High Court dealt with objection raised by Department about receiving of additional evidence for first time at stage of appeal. perusal of judgment discloses that after additional evidence was admitted Assessing Officer was given opportunity and he made written submissions pointing out that document ought not to have been filed at all. Delhi High Court took view that there is nothing wrong in receiving evidence and that Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did not go deep into document but simply relied upon it, and granted relief to assessee. It is difficult to discern any principle of law or ratio from said judgment. It was typical observation made in facts of case. That is evident from following sentence (108 of 335 ITR): "Therefore, in order to balance equities, we are of opinion that on one hand, assessee be permitted to rely upon additional evidence produced before Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals), and at same time, Assessing Officer also be given opportunity to verify these documents." In Subbu Shashank's case (supra), Madras High Court was dealing with case, in which assessee examined witness for first time before Commissioner (Appeals) but Department was not given opportunity to cross-examine witness. Obviously for that reason, adjudication undertaken by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was held to be in contravention of rule 46A of Rules. relevant portion reads (page 580 of 327 ITR): "Admittedly, in present case on hand, Assessing Officer has not been given opportunity to cross-examine witnesses produced by assessee. That is reason why Tribunal has observed that rule 46A of Income-tax Rules has been violated." Naturally violation is of rule 46A(3)(a) of Rules. facts of case on hand are substantially different. Therefore, appeal is dismissed. miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Unique Plastics P. Ltd