2022 (11) TMI 425 - HC - Income Tax

High Court Directs ITAT to Verify Land Distance for Capital Gains Assessment

Pooja Agarwal Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.)

The High Court directed the ITAT to verify the distance of land for capital gains assessment from the outskirts of Jaipur. The ITAT remanded the matter to ... Nature of land sold - agricultural land - distance from the limits of municipality i.e. Jaipur to the area in which the land in question is situated being contrary to the directions of this Hon’ble Court - whether the ITAT was justified in remanding the matter to the assessing officer for measuring/re-verifying the distance of the land from the outskirts of the Jaipur when the directions of the High Court were strictly to the ITAT itself to do the needful and if necessary, to take the help of the revenue authority? - HELD THAT:- Directions specifically remitted the matter to the Tribunal only for the purposes of verifying the distance. The submission is that the verification of the distance was to be done by the Tribunal itself and it could not have relegated the matter to the assessing authority. Tribunal has remanded the matter to the assessing authority for the simple reason that the verification of the distance required proper and supporting evidence, which was not provided to it. If that be so, the Tribunal could have requested the revenue authority as directed by the High Court to make the measurement and to submit the report and acting upon such report could have recorded its finding rather than remanding the matter to the assessing officer. As pertinent to note that the ITAT is the last fact finding authority and its power in recording finding of fact is akin to that of AO/CIT (Appeals). Tribunal itself could have recorded the finding with regard to the distance of the land from the outskirts of the Jaipur City itself rather than, remanding the matter the Assessing Authority or in the alternative may have requested the Assessing Authority or the Revenue Authority to make the measurements and to submit a report for the purposes of recording finding thereof. When there is a direction issued by the High Court, the Tribunal is expected to follow the same in pith and substance. The direction of the High Court in remanding the matter to the Tribunal was to verify the distance of the land from the outskirts of the City and for that purpose, if necessary to take the help of the Revenue Authority. ITAT without taking help of the Revenue Authority simply remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority for the purposes of recording finding with regard to the distance of the land in question from the outskirts of the city of Jaipur. This is completely in derogation of the spirit of the order of the High Court. We are of the opinion that the ITAT manifestly erred in remanding the matter to the Assessing Authority instead of recording the finding with regard to the distance of the land itself, which is contrary to the directions of the Hon’ble High Court. Substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the Assessee. Issues:1. Interpretation of High Court directions regarding verification of distance of land for capital gains assessment.2. Justification of ITAT remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer instead of deciding the distance itself.Issue 1: Interpretation of High Court directionsThe case involved a dispute over the assessment of capital gains on the sale of land situated outside the municipal limits of Jaipur. The High Court, in a previous judgment, directed the Income Tax Appellate Authority (ITAT) to verify the distance of the land from the outskirts of Jaipur in accordance with a specific notification. However, the ITAT remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer, citing the need for proper verification and supporting evidence. The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the ITAT's decision, questioning whether it was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to measure the distance instead of following the High Court's directions. The core issue was whether the ITAT's decision to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer was in line with the High Court's directive to verify the distance itself or with the help of the revenue authority.Issue 2: Justification of ITAT's decisionThe High Court's judgment was clear in directing the ITAT to re-verify the distance of the land from the outskirts of Jaipur, emphasizing the importance of considering a specific notification and a previous court judgment. The High Court's directions explicitly remitted the matter to the ITAT for the sole purpose of verifying the distance. The ITAT's decision to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer was based on the lack of proper evidence before it for adjudication. However, the Tribunal, being the final fact-finding authority, had the power to record findings itself, akin to the Assessing Officer/CIT (Appeals). The ITAT could have requested the revenue authority to measure the distance and submit a report for its consideration instead of remanding the matter. By not following the High Court's directions and remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer, the ITAT acted contrary to the spirit of the High Court's order. Consequently, the High Court found that the ITAT erred in remanding the matter and set aside the ITAT's order, directing it to record findings on the distance of the land from the outskirts of Jaipur as per the High Court's directive within a specified timeframe.In conclusion, the High Court's judgment clarified the ITAT's role in verifying the distance of the land for capital gains assessment and emphasized the importance of following court directives. The decision highlighted the need for adherence to court orders and proper consideration of evidence in tax assessment matters.