- (1.) THESE appeals are directed against the impugned order of learned Tribunal, dt. 13th March, 2003. It was ordered that both the appeals shall 0be disposed of at admission stage.
(2.) THE assessee -appellant has raised the following questions of law in GT Appeal : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of GT Act were attracted and that there was any deemed gift taxable in the hands of the assessee ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the nomination of membership seat by the assessee to another person is a transfer of property within the meaning of Section 4(1)(a) of the GT Act and this is subject to tax as deemed gift under Section 4(1)(a) of the GT Act ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the membership seat of a stock exchange is a 'property' within the meaning of the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the GT Act or merely a personal privilege granted to a member by the stock exchange ? (4) Whether the deemed gift under Section 4(1)(a) of the GT Act can be charged to tax with reference to an amount of consideration for which assessee has been charged to income -tax by considering the same amount of consideration as full value of consideration received for the purpose of Section 48 r/w Section 45 of the IT Act, 1961 ? (5) Whether the burden under Section 4(1)(a) of the GT Act, 1958, is not on the Department to prove the market value of the property transferred and whether such burden can be said to have been discharged in the present case when learned Tribunal did not accept the value taken by the GTO ? (6) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is possible in law to determine the value of membership fees merely on estimate and in ad hoc manner and charge the tax on deemed gift on that basis under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act ?' The assessee -appellant has raised the following questions of law in IT Appeal : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the membership seat of a stock exchange is a property or merely a personal privilege granted to a member by the stock exchange and whether the same can be treated as 'capital asset' within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, nomination is a transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Act ? (3) Whether admission fees paid by the appellant can be considered as cost of acquisition within the meaning of Section 55 of the Act for the purpose of computing the capital gains under Section 45 of the Act ? (4) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding that the consideration received by the appellant on account of nomination of another person in his place in respect of membership of stock exchange when the right of such nomination is not a capital asset, is chargeable as capital gains under Section 45 of the Act ? (5) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is possible in law to make an addition in the value of the consideration received merely on estimate and in ad hoc manner by stating the basis of equity, justice and good conscience ? (6) Whether capital gains under Section 45 of the Act are to be computed on the basis of actual consideration received or on the basis of notional consideration determined by the Department ? (7) Whether the capital gain can be charged to tax with reference to an amount of consideration for which assessee has been charged to gift -tax by deeming that such consideration has not been received by it and whether such contradictory order of the learned Tribunal is not liable to be quashed ? (8) Whether learned Tribunal can enhance the income assessed by learned AO? (9) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is not perverse, illegal, unjust, improper and contrary to the material on record and without application of mind ?'
(3.) THE main controversy in these appeals is whether the membership of the stock exchange is a property and on its transfer whether capital gain tax is attracted. The controversy has also been raised that whether the value of the property should be taken at Rs. 10,00,000.;