Court held that the Revenue authorities got confused between section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act on the one hand and section 63 of the said Act on the other. It is axiomatic under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act that when permission is granted by the authorities concerned for sale of agricultural land to a non-agriculturist, the land does not cease to be an agricultural land merely because of such permission being granted. If the conditions of the permission were not complied with, the land in respect of which permission was granted under section 63 would revert to its original character of agricultural land. On the one hand, the Revenue authorities stated that the agreement to sell was invalid as it was between an agriculturist and a non-agriculturist and such agreement could not have been executed in favour of the purchaser, being a non-agriculturist, without the permission of the competent authority. However, ultimately when the permission was granted by the authority despite such agreement to sell and when the assessee transferred the land, the Revenue authorities stated that the land was non-agricultural. There was no proper finding regarding the character of the land. Matter remanded.  (AY. 2013-14)