Allowing the petition the Court held, that the Assessing Officer should have restricted his scope to determining whether the land was situated in an area which was comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality or cantonment board and whether it had a population in excess of ten thousand. If the additional evidence submitted by the assessee mentioning that the land sold as agricultural land did not inspire confidence or required further verification, the Assessing Officer should have conducted proper enquiry to ascertain the authenticity of certificates issued by Talati and Gram Sevak. Without disproving the correctness of the confirmation and certificates issued by the Talati and Gram Sevak, the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the assessee’s claim of agricultural land particularly when the evidence showed that the lands were recorded as agricultural lands in the Government records. The assessment of capital gains was not valid. Where the assessee brings evidence that the land in question was recognised as agricultural in Government records, the Revenue authorities are duty bound to verify the authenticity of such evidence and if they want to reject the claim, they must bring contrary material on record to disprove the claim. Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer.  (AY.2013-14)