COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. NARASIMHA REDDY B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 :

(2.) THE assessee along with his son jointly purchased a plot of land situated at Vijanpura village in Krishnarajpura, Hubli, Bangalore north taluk. THE land was located within the urbanized area adjacent to big factories, like I.T.I., Kemp Son and Co., etc. THEy purchased the land in 1962 from an agriculturist as agricultural land. But no attempt was made by the assessee or his son to cultivate the said land. THE land was left fallow up to 1969, in which year the assessee obtained permission to convert the land for non-agricultural purposes. Immediately thereafter, he formed layout with the laid out plots as house sites and sold some of the sites to the workers in the nearby factories.

(3.) IT is a well-settled principle that the court in each case has to determine the nature of the transaction, its volume, frequency, continuity and regularity and there is hardly any abstract rule, principle or test for application. <PARA> Venkataswami Naidu and Co. v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 594, the Supreme Court observed at page 609 :