Judgment :- 1. On a requisition by the High Court under S.256 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, referred to us the following question: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income derived by the sale of the land in question was not assessable as capital gainse" 2. The assessee is a registered firm. The assessment year is 1965-66, the accounting year being the year ended on 315 1964. The assessee purchased 2 acres 15 cents of land on 14 71961 in Ward No. 1, Block 5 of the Calicut Corporation. As the property had no approach to any road, a narrow piece of land for providing a passage was subsequently purchased by the assessee. The total amount including the incidental charges expended by the assessee for the purchase of the land was Rs. 14,607/-. 3. The assessee's land was subsequently acquired under the Land Acquisition Act by award dated 23 3 1964. The total sum received by the assessee by way of compensation under the Act was Rs. 69,952.03. The Income-tax Officer in completing the assessment for the relevant year held that the assessee had gained a sum of Rs. 57,461/-which was chargeable to income-tax under the head 'Capital gains'. This sum was determined by deducting from the total amount awarded, a sum of Rs. 12,485/-, which, according to the Officer, represented the proportionate cost of purchase of the land in 1961 after allowance was made for the cost of passage. On appeal, the order of the Income-tax Officer was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, on further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal held that the land in question was agricultural property and that the surplus amount received by the assessee upon acquisition of the property was not liable to be taxed as capital gains. Hence the present reference. 4. The Tribunal considered various factors in coming to the conclusion, as it did, that the land in question was agricultural property In the first place, the Tribunal had before it the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, where he had stated as follows: "The lands under acquisition and the basic land were inspected by me. Both are garden lands. They are near the road side. Both are garden lands. They are near the road side. The basic land and the lands under acquisition are registered as garden in the revenue records. They are situated within a distance of about 100 yard from each other. They are similar. The lands are agricultural land (coconut trees), (italics supplied) The Tribunal also found that the property had been purchased by the assessee in 1961 for a sum of Rs. 14,607/-, which worked out to Rs 69/-per cent. But if the cost of passage was excluded the price per cent would be even less. The Tribunal observed that the Department had no case that a house-site could have been purchased for such a low price in 1961 in the Corporation area of Calicut. It was also found that there were 90 coconut trees in addition to various other trees in the property. There were two thatched houses and also a well. Taking note of all this, including the further fact that the Land Acquisition Officer had upon an inspection of the property found that the land was agricultural property, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the property was agricultural in character both at the time of its purchase by the assessee in 1961 and at the time of the award in 1964. 5. What is an agricultural land was elaborately considered by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Andhra Pradesh v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards), Paigha (1976 Tax L. R.952 SC.) The Court held: "We agree that the determination of the character of land, according to the purpose for which it is meant or set apart and can be used, is a matter which ought to be determined on the facts of each particular case. What is really required to be shown is the connection with an agricultural purpose and user and not the mere possibility of user of land, by some possible future owner or possessor, for an agricultural purpose. It is not the mere potentiality, which will only affect its valuation as part of 'assets', but its actual condition and intended user which has to be seen for purposes of exemption from wealth-tax." The question therefore has to be determined on the basis of the present connec-ticn of the land with an agricultural purpose and user and not the mere possibility of user in the uncertain future. (See also Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ananthan Pillai 1972 KLT.160). 6. The assessee had placed before the Tribunal relevant and cogent evidence to support his contention that the land acquired was agricultural property. No evidence was adduced by the Department to controvert this contention. The burden was upon the Department to adduce cogent evidence to support its case that the land acquired was not an agricultural property. (See 1976 Tax. L. R.952 (SC.) at 958; 20 STC. 520 at 527). 7. The determination of the character of the land is a matter which has to be made on the facts of each particular case. These facts have been found by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. This Court would not enquire into the sufficiency of materials or substitute its judgment in the place of the judgment of the Tribunal in regard to questions of fact. So long as the finding of the Tribunal cannot be characterised as arbitrary or unreasonable, in the sense that there is total absence of legal evidence to support its conclusion, this Court will be very slow to interfere with it. (See P, C. Ittymathew Son v. State of Kerala (1976 37 STC. 184) Ia the present case it cannot be stated that the Tribunal did not have the necessary evidence to support its conclusion or that no reasonable man would have reached the same conclusion on the basis of the determined facts. In the circumstances we are of the view that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in directing the deletion of a sum of Rs. 57,461/-which was included in the assessee's total income as capital gains. 8. Accordingly we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. There will be no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.