Accommodation entry commission cannot be added twice when the same income was already taxed under prior proceedings.

Estimated commission income could not be added on the purchase turnover in an alleged accommodation entry arrangement because the commission was attributable to the beneficiary-side transactions, not to the seller from whom purchases were made; the purchase-side addition was deleted. A further addition on the sales turnover was also impermissible where the same commission income had already been brought to tax and the dispute stood settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme; duplicate taxation on the same basis was not allowed, and the assessee's position was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether estimated commission income could be added on the purchase turnover arising from alleged accommodation entries. (ii) Whether further addition could survive on the sales turnover when the same commission income had already suffered tax under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

Issue (i): Whether estimated commission income could be added on the purchase turnover arising from alleged accommodation entries.

Analysis: The commission element, even where accommodation entries are alleged, is attributable to the beneficiaries obtaining the entries through sales invoices issued by the assessee. The selling party from whom the assessee made purchases cannot, on that footing, be treated as the source of commission to the assessee. Estimation of commission on the purchase turnover was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The addition on the purchase turnover was rightly deleted and is against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether further addition could survive on the sales turnover when the same commission income had already suffered tax under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

Analysis: The sales turnover had already been subjected to commission estimation in earlier proceedings, and the dispute on that aspect stood settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Once the same income had already been brought to tax, a second addition on the same footing was not permissible.

Conclusion: No further addition on the sales turnover survived and the view in favour of the assessee was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed because the estimated commission could not be levied on the purchase turnover and no duplicate addition could be sustained on the sales turnover already taxed.

Ratio Decidendi: In alleged accommodation entry cases, commission income is attributable only to the beneficiary-side transactions giving rise to the entries, and income already taxed in earlier proceedings cannot be subjected to a second addition on the same basis.

---