Agricultural land character is a question of fact, so evidence-based findings resist interference in section 260A appeals.

Land shown in revenue records as garden land, actually used for /agricultural purposes, with land revenue paid and no non-agricultural permission obtained, was treated as agricultural land outside the definition of capital asset under the Income-tax Act. The Court reiterated that the character of land is ly a question of fact to be determined on cumulative appreciation of relevant circumstances, and that sale price, surrounding development, or sale on a square-metre basis are not decisive by themselves. As the Tribunal's finding was evidence-based and not perverse, no substantial question of law arose under section 260A and the Revenue could not secure interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the land sold by the assessees was agricultural land so as to fall outside the definition of capital asset under the Income-tax Act, and whether the Tribunal's finding on that question could be interfered with in an appeal under section 260A.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled principles that the character of land as agricultural or otherwise is essentially a question of fact to be decided on a cumulative appreciation of relevant factors, as laid down in the Supreme Court decisions governing the issue. It noted that the revenue records showed the land as garden land, land revenue had been paid, the land was actually used for agricultural purposes, and no permission for non-agricultural use had been obtained. The Court further held that the sale price, surrounding development, or the fact that the land was sold on a square-metre basis were not ative by themselves. It also held that the Tribunal's conclusion was based on evidence and was not perverse, and therefore did not raise a substantial question of law warranting interference under section 260A.

Conclusion: The land was agricultural land, the sale did not attract capital gains tax, and the Tribunal's finding was not liable to be disturbed in appeal.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the Revenue could not convert a factual determination on the nature of the land into a substantial question of law.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal under section 260A, a finding that land is agricultural land, reached on a cumulative assessment of relevant facts and supported by evidence, is a finding of fact immune from interference unless it is perverse or unsupported by material.

---