z958 the question whether the transaction, being an isolated transaction, there was nevertheless an adventure in G. Venkataswanii .Vaidu 0;. Co. the nature of trade which was assessable to tax nuder v. Case I of Schedule D. The Commissioners were direct. n, c.,n,.,,;,,;u.,,, ed to hear furthn arguments on this point before of lnco,.e·tax stating a Rupplementary case. After r<'mand, the Commissioners adhered to their earlier Yiew and stated liajendra.t!adkar · / ·that they were of opinion that the transact.ion was an isolated case and not taxable and so they discharged the assessments. 'V ith the statement of this supplementary case, the matter was argued before the Chancery Division a.gain. Wynn-Parry, J., who delivered the judgment. on this occasion referred to the earlier decisions of thr Court of Appeal and held that "on those authorities prima fa.cie the mat.ter is concluded by t.he decisiou of the Commissioners that the transaction, the 8ubject-matter of the case, was not an adventure in the nature of trade' . Then the learned judge examined the question as. to whether the decision of the Commissioners can be said to be perverse ; and held that it could not be so characterised. ln the result tbe i•ppeal was dismissed. The question then reached t.he Court of Appeal but the result was the ~am<'. Tho Court of Appeal observed that the earlier decisions were bindiug on it no less than the Court of First Instanco; and so it held that the conclusion of the Commissioners was a finding of fact which the court cannot disturb. However, it is apparent from the discussion thM took place when the court granted lea,,e to the Crown to take the matter to the House of .Lords that the court did not feel happy about the correctness of the finding made by the GPneral Commissioners in thE- cast'. That is how the mat.ter reach<•d the House of Lords.
