HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Commissioner of Income-tax
versus
Ambience Developers and Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.
IT Appeal Nos. 195 to 199 & 203 of 2012
C.M. APPL. NOS. 5434, 5436,5437,5439, 5441 & 5444 OF 2012
July 27, 2012
JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. (Open Court) – The revenue has preferred these batch of appeals, claiming to be aggrieved by a common decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Asstt. CIT v. Ambience Developers & Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2011] 47 SOT 149 (Delhi) (URO).
2. The facts necessary to decide these appeals are that there was a search and seizure action under Section 132 on the Ambience Group of Companies, on 10.10.2007. The assessee belongs to the group which was covered in the search. In that year the assessee was in the property construction business i.e. building a mall in the National Capital Region of Delhi. The AO noted that the company was constructing the “Ambience Mall Projects”, at NH-8, Gurgaon. Major construction work for the Mall was by M/s Ambience Projects and Infrastructure Ltd. and expenses were accounted for on the basis of bills drawn by the construction company. Certain costs and expenses were incurred directly by the assessee in its project.
3. During the assessment proceedings, the AO, based on certain seized documents mentioned in the assessment order concluded that the expenses incurred on the construction of Ambience Mall project, NH-8, Gurgaon were not completely reflected in the books of account. He therefore, made a reference to the Valuation Officer under Section 142A of the Income Tax Act. The Valuation Officer in his report, stated that the total investment incurred in the said property should have been Rs. 437,88,53,104/- over various years. As against that the assessee had shown the investment at Rs. 421,60,56,594/- for the relative period, in its books of account. The comparative year wise details of the expenses shown by the assessee company and as estimated by the Valuation Officer are as under:
