Allowing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that the lands were held by the assessee only for a short period of one year and sold to a company, in which the karta of the assessee was the chairman. The land was put to use for construction of a special economic zone. The Village Administrative Officer, who had been examined by the Assessing Officer, stated that the lands were barren land, and therefore, a decision could not be taken merely based on entry in the revenue record. The revenue records were not mutated in the name of the assessee, but stood in the name of the assessee’s vendor. The holding period by the assessee was very crucial in the case, as it was only one year, and all these factors were rightly taken note of by the Assessing Officer who held that the land was not an “agricultural land”. There was no evidence placed before the Assessing Officer or before the Commissioner (Appeals) or before the Tribunal to establish the character of the land. The lands were not agricultural and the gains from sale thereof were not exempt from tax.  Ratio in  Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim (Smt.)  v. CIT  (1993)  204 ITR 631 (SC) applied. (AY. 2008-09)