Appeal dismissed for lack of evidence & non-appearance, additions upheld under section 68. Appellant's claims unsubstantiated.

The appeal was dismissed as ex-parte due to the Appellant's non-appearance and failure to provide evidence. The Commissioner upheld the additions of Rs. 1,27,00,000/- and Rs. 2,54,000/- under section 68 of the Act, as the Appellant did not fulfill the conditions required by law and failed to substantiate their claims. The Appellant's lack of cooperation and inability to prove the legitimacy of the transactions led to the affirmation of the Assessing Officer's decision, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
- Appeal against order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-8, New Delhi for the assessment year 2010-11.
- Ex-parte decision due to non-appearance of the Appellant despite multiple notices.
- Addition of Rs. 1,27,00,000/- and Rs. 2,54,000/- respectively u/s. 68 of the Act on account of accommodation entry and commission.

The appeal was filed by the Assessee against the order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-8, New Delhi for the assessment year 2010-11. The Appellant neither appeared nor filed any adjournment application despite multiple notices, leading to the decision to proceed ex-parte. The Assessing Officer made additions of Rs. 1,27,00,000/- and Rs. 2,54,000/- under section 68 of the Act concerning accommodation entry and commission, based on information received regarding the Appellant's association with a beneficiary of accommodation entry provider Shri Pradeep Kumar Jindal and group companies.

The Appellant challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer before the Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal as ex-parte but considered the merits. The Commissioner upheld the additions of Rs. 1,27,00,000/- and Rs. 2,54,000/-, stating that the Appellant failed to provide necessary details to justify the claim and did not fulfill the conditions of section 69 of the Act. Despite being given opportunities, the Appellant did not produce any material or evidence to support their case, leading to the affirmation of the impugned order.

The Appellant's failure to appear or provide evidence resulted in the dismissal of the appeal. The authorities found that the Appellant did not discharge the onus to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the party involved in the transactions, nor did they prove the genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, the decision to uphold the additions made by the Assessing Officer was deemed appropriate, and the impugned order was affirmed.

---