Investor versus trader in shares: concurrent factual findings and evidence of investment character defeated any substantial question of law.

Delivery-based share transactions, supported by prior capital-gains treatment, dividend income, absence of a running broker account, and evidence that surplus funds were used for investment, indicated investor status rather than trading activity. Concurrent factual findings by the lower authorities that no borrowings were made were not shown to be perverse, so they were binding and no substantial question of law arose on appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was an investor in shares or a trader in shares, and whether any substantial question of law arose from the concurrent factual findings of the lower authorities.

Analysis: The assessee had consistently returned share-sale gains as capital gains in earlier years, the transactions were delivery-based, there was no running broker account, dividend income supported the investment character, and the alleged borrowing from the partnership firm was disbelieved on examination of accounts and balance sheets. Both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal recorded concurrent findings that there were no borrowings by the assessee and that surplus funds were used for investment. Such concurrent findings were not shown to be perverse. The earlier and subsequent assessment years also showed the Revenue treating the assessee as an investor on similar facts, which was consistent with the view taken in the cited precedent on share transactions.

Conclusion: The assessee was correctly treated as an investor in shares, and no substantial question of law arose.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact on the character of share transactions, where supported by evidence and not shown to be perverse, do not give rise to a substantial question of law under section 260-A.

---