Counsel for the appellant disputed the correctness of the High Court 's judgment and contended: (1 ) that it was in error in declining to go into the correctness of the findings of the Tribunal by merely stating that they were findings of fact, (2) that the question whether a particular item was a trading profit or capital accretion depended on the intention on the part of the assessee at the time of the transaction in question and which had Sup CI/70 12 170 to be arrived at by an inference from established facts and was, therefore, a mixed question of fact and law, (3) that on the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal, and following it the High Court, was in error in treating the gold and the Karanpura shares as the stock in trade of the assessee for his alleged trading activities, (4) that the onus of proving that the activities of the assessee amounted to activities in the nature of trade or business was on the department and particularly so,, as the Tribunal in the earlier assessments had come to a contrary conclusion, and (5) that the facts and circumstances as accepted by the Tribunal in its Statement of Case showed that the purchases of gold and share were made without any intention at that time to resell them at profit, and that therefore, the subsequent sales thereof would not stamp those transactions with the character of trade or business in them.