IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A. No. 878 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: 17.8.2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ..........Appellant Versus Sukh Lal ..........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Rajesh Katoach, Advocate for the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) The issue before the Tribunal was whether the land in question was covered by the definition of “capital asset” under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), which depends upon distance specified in notification issued under the said provision. The Tribunal proceeded on the footing that required distance was two kilometers. Learned counsel for the revenue submits that as per notification No. 9447 dated 6.1.1994, requisite distance was 8 kilometers, for Gurgaon. This being a factual matter not brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the revenue has remedy to approach the Tribunal itself, by way of an appropriate application. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 17, 2009 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No