JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Sujata Manohar, J.) : This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The following question has been referred to us for determination : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the transaction of purchase on 3rd April, 1980 and sale on 1.10.1980 of the National Gold Bonds, 1980, which were effectively held by the assessees only for a period of two days from 29.9.80 to 1.10.80 was entered into with the intention of making profit and that such profit earned on the sale of National Gold Bonds, 1980, would be assessable as business income in the hands of the assessees ? In our view the question as framed does not bring out correctly the point at issue which we are required to determine. It is also framed in a manner which begs the question. With the consent of parties, therefore, we have re-framed the question as follows : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the transaction of purchase and Sale of the National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980 amounted to an adventure in the nature of trade and the resulting profit was taxable as business income in the hands of the assessees ? The assessees purchased National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980 on 3rd April, 1980 at the price of Rs. 1125/-.per bond. He purchased bonds worth 1000 grams of gold. The actual payment of the purchase price was made by him by cheque on 29.9.1980. Under the National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980 scheme the bonds were to be exchanged by the holder for gold on 27.10.1980. The assessees however, sold these bonds in one lot on 1.10.1980. He made a profit of Rs. 33,500/-. In a note attached to his return of income for the assessment year 1981-82 the assessees declared this profit resulting from the purchase and sale of National Defence Gold Bonds of 1980 amounting to Rs. 33,500/- as capital gain exempt from tax on the ground that under section 2(14)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980 are excluded from the definition of "capital assets". Hence no capital gains tax is payable in respect of the profit arising from the transaction. The Income-tax Officer however, brought the amount of Rs. 33,500/- as capital gain exempt from tax on the ground that under section 2(14)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980 are excluded from the definition of "capital assets". Hence no capital gains tax is payable in respect of the profit arising from the transaction. The Income-tax Officer however, brought the amount of Rs. 33,500/- to tax as income from an adventure in the nature of trade. This finding was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. Hence the present reference. Whether a solitary transaction of purchase and sale such as this, can be considered as an adventure in the nature of trade, is a mixed question of facts and law. In a number of cases this question has come up for consideration before the Supreme Court and other High Courts. The Supreme Court in the case of C. Venkatswami Naidu & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (1959) XXXV ITR 594 laid down certain tests for determining whether any given transaction can be looked upon as an adventure In the nature of trade. It said : "In deciding the character of such transactions several factors are relevant, such as, e.g. whether the purchaser was a trader and the purchase of the commodity and its resale were allied to his usual trade or business or incidental to it; the nature and quality of the commodity purchased and resold, any act subsequent to the purchase to improve the quality of the commodity purchased and thereby make it more readily re-saleable; any act prior to the purchase showing a design or purchase; the incidents associated with the purchase and resale, the similarity of the transaction to operations usually associated with trade or business; the repetition of the transaction; the element of pride of possession." The Supreme Court also said that in a given case even an isolated transaction can satisfy the description of adventure in the nature of trade, provided at least some of the essential features of trade are present in the isolated or single transaction. The Supreme Court in the case of Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, (1959) 37 ITR p. 243 observed that where a transaction was not in the line of business of the assessees but was an isolated or single instance of a transaction, the onus was on the department to prove that the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade. In the present case the assesees income consists of salary, guarantee commission and the like. In the return of income for the assessment year 1981-82 the assessees has shown his income from salary as Rs. 54,200/-, interest on securities as Rs. 184/- and he has shown business income in the form of (1) Guarantee Commission Rs. 22,951/- and (2) Interest from M/s. Soorajmull Nasaraulla at Rs. 12000/-. There is no other business income. The transaction of purchasing National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980 and selling them after a few months is a solitary transaction. It is therefore for the department to establish that this transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade. According to Mr. Jetley the fact that actual payment for purchase was made on 29.9.1980 and the sale took place on 1.10.1980 would indicate that the sole motive for purchasing these gold bonds was to make a profit by selling them. This argument ignores the fact that the bonds were purchased on 3rd April, 1980 and were sold only in October 1980. There was thereafter no question of any quick profit. There does not appear to be any material which would establish that the only motive of the assessees in purchasing these bonds was to make a profit by selling them of a later date. The assessees had not purchased bonds in very large quantities thereby indicating a desire to trade in them, nor is there any material to show that he had no intention of retaining the bonds and exchanging them for gold on the due date 27.10.1980, as he could have done. The assessees had the means to pay for these bonds and in fact he did pay for them. The mere fact that he sold them on 1.10.1980 is not sufficient for the purpose of coming to a conclusion that this was an adventure in the nature of trade. The assessees had the means to pay for these bonds and in fact he did pay for them. The mere fact that he sold them on 1.10.1980 is not sufficient for the purpose of coming to a conclusion that this was an adventure in the nature of trade. There is also no material to show that the assessees was carrying on any business similar to that of buying and selling bonds such as dealing in stock or shares; or that the re-sale of bonds was allied to the assessees usual trade or business or was incidental to it. In these circumstances in our view the department has not discharged the burden of establishing that this was an adventure in the nature of trade. Mr. Dastur, learned counsel for the assessees, has also drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta, reported in (1965) LVIX ITR 21 where the purchase by the assessees of a jute factory and its resale within 6 months were in the circumstances of that case, held by the Supreme Court not to be a business venture. In the present case the burden of establishing that the solitary transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade was on the department. It has not discharged that burden. We, therefore, need not go into the cases which are referred to by the Supreme Court in the two decisions cited earlier. These cases do indicate however, that the transaction must have some trappings of a business nature before it can be considered as an adventure in the nature of trade-such as bulk purchase, advertising for its sale, similar other profitable ventures, no likelihood of retaining the purchased item for one's own use etc. In the present case none of these features have been established by the department. In the circumstances the question as reframed is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessees. There will be no order as to costs.