DEKA, C. J. (Acting): This is a reference under S. 66(1) of the In­come-tax Act at the instance of the assessee. The facts stated are that the assessee a joint family concern carried on business in potato, oil cakes etc. and commission agency business. It had borrowed 'large amounts from Shilloiig Banking Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as, the Bank for the purpose of shortness) on an overdraft account. The amount outstanding and payable on this account in the books maintained by the assessee for the aforesaid activities was Rs. 35,912-11-6 in the Sambat year 2005 Ram Navami when the Bank suspended operation in May 1948 and applied for a scheme. When the assessee was pressed by the Bank for payment of the amount due on the overdraft, in 1950 the assessee approached the Board of Directors of the aforesaid Bank and obtained a concession to adjust such fixed and other deposits of the Bank as the assessee could tender, in settle­ment of the aforesaid outstandings at their face value, provided the assessee paid in cash Rs. 5,000/-to the Bank forthwith. In pursuance of that arrangement the assesses paid Rs. 5,000/- to Bank in three instalments by 19-2-1952. The balance left thereafter in the overdraft account was thus reduced to Rs. 30,912-11-6. Due to some adjust­ment the debt due from the assessee was shown in the pass book of the Bank as Rs. -29,944-8-6. With a view to wipe out the above indebtedness to the Bank, the assessee purchased from several persons their fixed and other deposits in the aforesaid Bank as also the interest accrued there­on on different dates ranging from 23-1-1952 to 11-3-1952 and tendered the Ml payment receipts to the Bank on two different dates and got an adjustment of payment for a sum of Rs. 23,866-15-6. It is found that the assessee had bought the full payment receipts in regard to the accounts of fix­ed and other deposits as mentioned above for a sum of Rs. 5,677/- and had made in all a clear profit of Rs. 16,995/- in the matter of these transactions. The Income-tax Officer assessed the above profit of Rs. 16,995/- as profit from other sources in the aforesaid assessment year of 1952-53. 5,677/- and had made in all a clear profit of Rs. 16,995/- in the matter of these transactions. The Income-tax Officer assessed the above profit of Rs. 16,995/- as profit from other sources in the aforesaid assessment year of 1952-53. The assessee went up in appeal and the Appellate Assis­tant Commissioner affirmed the order of the In­come-tax Officer,' and held that the assessee was liable for tax on the above amount which could be considered as profit in the course of business. The Income-tax Tribunal on appeal, held that the above mentioned sum of Rs. 16,995/- could be considered as income or profit chargeable under Sec. 10 of the Income-tax Act. The contention of the assessee has been that this amount signify­ing the difference in the price paid and the con­sideration received did not amount to profit; nor was_ it earned in the course of business, as is defined by the Income-tax Act itself. The point that was referred to this Court by the Income-tax Tribunal runs as follows: ; "Whether the transactions entered into by the assessee family in discharging its overdraft account could amount to a business so as to make the surplus of Rs. 16,9957- arising therefrom in­come, profit and gains assessable under Sec. 10 of the Income-tax Act." Mr. Sharma, appearing for the assessee, has contend­ed before us that these transactions, by virtue of which the assessee purchased the full payment receipts from the depositors of the Bank, did not amount to business, and, in this connection out attention was drawn to the definition of the word "business" in Sec. 2(4) of the Income-tax Act. The definition as is clear, is not by itself exhaustive and it runs in the form - " 'business' includes any trade, commerce, or manufacture or any adventure or con­cern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufac­ture.'' Mr. Sharma's contention is that this opera­tion of the transaction, which the assessee carried, did not come within any of the words by which the word 'business' is sought to be defined. In our opinion, it is difficult to accept this contention, because there was apparently a purchase of valu­able rights (sic) and encashment thereof which, in our opinion, could be included in trade. Mere act of purchase itself can be considered to be trade when the intention is that the articles purchased were to be sold at a later time. In our opinion, it is difficult to accept this contention, because there was apparently a purchase of valu­able rights (sic) and encashment thereof which, in our opinion, could be included in trade. Mere act of purchase itself can be considered to be trade when the intention is that the articles purchased were to be sold at a later time. In this case, it is clear from the facts as stated that the assessee purchased these full payment receipts from the depositors with a view to derive the full benefits for the sums which the depositors held in the Bank and they were actually so derived at a later stage. In our opinion, therefore, the income could be considered to be income from business within the word 'profit or gains of business' as contained in Sec. 10 of the Income-tax Act. Mr. Sharma's argument as to exemption of assessment on this amount is based on two grounds; firstly, .that it is not an income from business, and, second­ly, that this income was of a casual and non-recurring nature as described in S. 4(3)(viii) of the Act. Clause (viii) itself makes it clear that once it is considered to be a receipt from business, whether it is of a casual nature or not is of no importance. This point also had been dealt with in the judgment of the Income-tax Tribunal. (2) Mr. Sharma has drawn our attention to some authorities on the point, the first amongst them being the case of Mohsin Rehman Penkar v. Commr. of Income-tax. Bombay City, reported in 1948-16 ITR 183: (AIR 1948 Bom 378). In our opinion, the facts there are entirely different from the facts in the present case. What was held in that case and in other two cases of similar nature was that if a debtor is discharged from certain liability by the creditor that by itself does not amount to a profit for the purpose of assessment under the Income-tax Act. In the Bombay case just cited what was held was that 'if the Income-tax department accepts the mercantile system of accounting and allows an assessee to deduct interest on a mortgage on the basis of what he has actually paid, the department is not concerned as to how the, liability incurred by the assessee is in fact discharged. In the Bombay case just cited what was held was that 'if the Income-tax department accepts the mercantile system of accounting and allows an assessee to deduct interest on a mortgage on the basis of what he has actually paid, the department is not concerned as to how the, liability incurred by the assessee is in fact discharged. Even if the assessee discharge; his liability by getting a remis­sion from his creditor that remission cannot be the assessee's income for purposes of taxation'. In this case there has been no remission by the Bank and the advantage that the assessee derived was in the matter of transaction through these deposits. This case could not be applied even in the case of transaction with the depositors since the assessee owed them nothing; nor was any remission granted by them in the matter of liability. What took place was clear transactions of purchase of the full payment certificates from the depositors with a view to cash them for higher values for satisfying the assessee's liability to the Bank. These cases, therefore, have no bearing on the point at issue. We accordingly decide the point under reference in favour of the department and hold that the surplus of Rs. 16,995/- received from the transactions amounted to profit under S. 10 of the Income-tax Act. The point under reference is answered in the affirmative and the assessee is liable to pay Rs. 200/-as costs. (3) MEHROTRA, J. : I agree. LC/K.S.B. Answered in the affirmative.