4.2 If there is a systematic activity, the inference of 'business' and, consequently, of the income arising there-from as being business income, is unmistakable, even as, without doubt, a single venture could also be invested with the attribute of, and thus, be in the nature of a trading transaction. In the present case, firstly, the assessee has not undertaken any land development business till the end of the relevant year, though has acquired land toward the same on the take over of a company in that business. The land sold was acquired as an industrial land, and stands sold as such, i.e., without undertaking any development activity thereon. All that, as we see it, the assessee has done is to realize its capital assets), as in the past, and as acceded to by the Id. AR, even in future. How could that attribute it with a character of trade or business, passes our comprehension? True, the assessee struck a deal with two Developer(s), and was well aware that its land presented a suitable housing site, and may, rather would, have bargained for a good price: But then, is it not entitled to fetch a proper price for its asset? And would that alter the character of the amount realized? These are the questions that arise from the Revenue's stand. In our emphatic view, the answer is clearly 'yes' and no' for the two questions respectively. Realizing a proper or even a better price, as where one is cognizant or aware of the future prospects of his capital asset, without anything more, would not in any manner lend it with the character of a business or trade. It is for the purchaser, who is to buy the asset for his business, assuming business risk, to see what price he can offer; a deal/bargain always represents a balance or trade off between conflicting interests, representing supply and demand. In fact, this is not even the Revenue's case, and there is no finding that the assessee had struck the deal at a higher value, and our observations are aimed at meeting the ld. DR’s contention with respect to the assessee being well cognizant and aware of the commercial potential of its asset, and which could well be true. That the assessee acted prudently, extracting a good price for its capital asset, qua which there is no ground as such, would be, nevertheless, of no moment, and would only impact the price and,
