Dismissing the appeals, the Court held that the money laundering can also be for oneself and there can be no presumption that it is for others, especially when the assessee refuses to divulge the details of the persons to whom the money was distributed. When the assessee contested the proceedings with a stout denial and nothing more and the various accounts were found to have been opened and operated on behalf of the assessee, the entire deposits therein had to be treated as his income. He could not plead that the commission adopted in another case should be adopted in his case without reference to the various factors regulating a hawala transaction; which per se is illegal. The adoption of the incremental peak credit as income was quite a plausible view, presuming at least that to be the income of the assessee. When incremental peak credits are taken as the income of the assessee for a particular year the said quantum should not be treated for the purpose of 2 per cent. commission and no addition should be made on that count. Hence the commission should be only on the amounts deposited, other than the incremental peak credit adopted for each year. (AY. 2002-03 to  2005-06)