Allowing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that a presumption did not arise because no evidence of agricultural operations on the land was placed by the assessee before any of the fact-finding authorities. The sole evidence placed on record by the assessee was a certificate of the Village Officer long after the sale. The land in question was not agricultural land. Accordingly the gains is assessable as capital gains. (AY. 2010-11)
CIT v. Kalathingal Faizal Rahman. (2019) 416 ITR 311 (Ker.) (HC)
S. 2(14)(iii) : Capital asset-Agricultural land-Burden is on assessee to prove that the land was agricultural-Mere certificate by village Officer after sale of land is not sufficient–Gains assessable as capital gains. [S. 45]