The Tribunal recorded a wrong factual finding that the search warrant did not include the assessee’s name. The Tribunal has not specifically referred to and dealt with the findings of the AO. which are detailed, specific & with reference to several factual aspects, documents, etc. The Tribunal is required to deal with the factual findings recorded by the AO and give its factual conclusions. The factual conclusion should be based upon reasons and should be outcome of analysis and discussion. The Tribunal being the final fact finding authority cannot merely record its conclusions without discussing the factual matrix, evidence and material. Merely stating that the papers etc. do not pertain to the assessee and the contents of the document cannot be utilized, is the conclusion or the final inference which is not sufficient in the light of what has been held by the AO in the block assessment order. The fact that the assessee filed a detailed written synopsis does not mean that the order of the Tribunal meets the legal requirement. The law mandates that the Tribunal should give reasons which are discernible and apparent from the order. What weighed with the Tribunal cannot be assumed in the absence of discussion

To determine whether an assessee is an investor in shares or a dealer in shares, a pragmatic and common sense approach has to be adopted always keeping in mind commercial considerations. The tests have been laid down in Instruction No.4/2007 dated 15.6.2007 & CIT vs. Rewashanker A. Kothari 283 ITR 338 (Guj). On facts, the Tribunal was right that the STCG was not assessable as business profits because (a) the assessee was a salaried employee, (b) He maintained two separate portfolios for investment and trading, (c) the shares were held for periods ranging from 2.4 months to 11 months, (d) though the quantum or total number shares was substantial, the transactions in question were only seven in number and the period of holding was insignificant and small. While the quantum or total number may not be determinative but in a given case keeping in view period of holding may indicate intention to make investment, (e) substantial dividend income had been received, (f) the element of uncertainty and risk is always there in securities and this factor cannot be a determinative factor to decide whether the assessee is trading in shares or is an investor. Some investors do take risk, (g) The ratio of sales and purchase will always be in favour of sales when the sales are sold and (h) in the earlier assessment years, transactions in the investment portfolio were accepted by the AO

The Tribunal finding that “The quantification of the remuneration was apparent from clause 8 of the partnership deed which provided that the remuneration would be payable as per norms fixed by the Income-tax Act. The requirement in law is that remuneration should have been authorized and the amount of remuneration shall not exceed the amount specified in s. 40(b)(v) which uses the word ‘authorised‘ and not the word ‘quantify‘” is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with by this Court

There is no requirement in s. 147, 148 or 149 that the reasons recorded should also accompany the notice issued u/s 148. The requirement in s. 149(1) is only that the notice u/s 148 shall be issued. There is no requirement that it should also be served on the assessee before the period of limitation. There is also no requirement in s. 148(2) that the reasons recorded shall be served along with the notice of reopening the assessment. The only mandatory requirement is that before issuing the notice to reopen the assessment the AO shall record his reasons for doing so. After GKN Driveshafts 259 ITR 19 (SC) the AO is duty bound to supply the recorded reasons to the assessee after the assessee files the return in response to the s. 148 notice. Haryana Acrylic turned on the peculiar facts of that case, where two sets of reasons had been recorded by the AO. As the second set of reasons alleging non-disclosure of material facts surfaced for the first time in the affidavit filed by the Revenue before the High Court after the expiry of 6 years, it was held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid. As this is not the fact situation here, the assessee’s plea cannot be accepted