Judgment :- RATNAM, J. In this tax case petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue seeks a direction to the Tribunal to refer the following two questions of law, for the opinion of this court 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of section 2(14), the Appellate Tribunal was right and had valid materials in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the lands sold by the assessee were agricultural lands and no capital gains arose on the sale of those lands? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's view that the agricultural lands within the panchayat cannot be regarded as falling within the scope of section 2(14) is reasonable, supported by valid materials and sustainable in law ? "With reference to the first question, we find that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal regarding the character of the land is factual. In arriving at the conclusion that the lands sold by the assessee were only agricultural lands, the Tribunal had taken into account not only the classification of the land in the revenue records as "garden land" but also the circumstances that the land was under the actual cultivation of the sister of the assessee and it had the benefit of channel irrigation and there were also 42 coconut trees thereon. That apart, the Tribunal had also considered the receipt of agricultural income from the land in question. Based on the aforesaid circumstances, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the land in question sold by the assessee was agricultural land. Even as regards the second question, it is seen that under section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. municipality, municipal corporation, notified area committed town area committee, town committee ", etc., have been used they refer only to certain specific entities either known by that name or by any other name and that cannot be taken to apply to a panchayat which is and has also always been understood as distinct and different from municipality, etc. In the absence of clear or specific words in the section to take in a panchayat, we are unable to countenance the argument of learned counsel for the Revenue. In the absence of clear or specific words in the section to take in a panchayat, we are unable to countenance the argument of learned counsel for the Revenue. We are satisfied that the Tribunal was quite justified in deleting the tax arising on capital gains on account of the sale of the agricultural lands by the assessee. The tax case petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.