JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J.
1. The Tribunal has referred to this court the following questions of law :
"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Section 2(e)(v) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, refers to interest in non-agricultural property and that the interest in agricultural land is exempt under Section 2(e)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act?
(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the capitalized value of sayar income could not be included in the net wealth of the assessee and was exempt under Section 2(e)(v) of Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?"
2. The Appellate Tribunal found as a fact that the sayar income of the assessee was derived under four specific heads :
(a) Receipts from haq malkana,
(b) Receipts from use of bazar land,
(c) Receipts from melas and fairs held on the assessee's land, and
(d) Receipts from sale of old trees.
3. On the materials on record, the Tribunal came to the further conclusion that all these receipts were income from agricultural land of the assessee. This finding of the Tribunal which is essentially on a question of fact does not, in our opinion, suffer from any material defect or error.
4. Section 2 of the W.T. Act, 1957, gives an inclusive definition of the term "asset" as follows :
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--...
(e) 'assets' includes property of every description, movable or immovable, but does not include-
(i) agricultural land and growing crops, grass or standing trees on such land;... "
5. It will thus be seen that agricultural land has expressly been excluded from the concept of asset as known to the W.T. Act. It is the value of the assets belonging to a person that are included in the net wealth of a person. Here it has been found as a fact that the entire income in question which was sought to be added to the net wealth of the assessee in the form of capitalization of the average annual sayar income by multiplying it by 20, was, in fact, income derived from agricultural land. Since agricultural land was not an asset within the meaning of the Act, income derived from such asset could not be capitalized so as to form an asset of a different character.
6. Learned counsel for the department invited our attention to Sub-clause (v) of Section 2(e) which says : "any interest in property where the interest is available to an assessee for a period not exceeding six years from the date the interest vests in the assessee". The argument was that since the sayar income was a constant source, it is a case where the income accrues for a period exceeding six years. This is an argument which can be based only upon a certain knowledge of what the future may have in store. It is not possible to say that in future sayar income will necessarily accrue to the assessee. Moreover, even so, it will not become an "interest in property" other than agricultural land. Even if this income accrues to the assessee for more than six years, it will be an income from agricultural land. The source of the income will not change to property other than agricultural land. We are unable to uphold this submission of the department. Comparing Clause (v) with Clause (i) of the same section, it is apparent that the property referred to in Clause (v) is other than agricultural land.
7. We, therefore, answer the questions referred to us by saying that Section 2(e)(v) refers to interest in non-agricultural land and that an interest in agriculturalland is exempt under Section 2(e)(i) of the W.T. Act. We also answer the second question by holding that the capitalized value of sayar income could not be included in the net wealth of assessee as it was exempt under Section 2(e)(i) of the Act.
8. The assessee will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 250.