Court held that  the appellate authorities had failed to mention the sub-clause of section 2(5B) of the Act under which the assessee fell. The expression “financial company” as defined under section 2(5B) of the Act means “a company” carrying on activities as enumerated in sub-clauses (iv) to (v) thereof. The assessing authority had proceeded on the premise that the assessee fell within the meaning of “residuary non-banking financial company” whereas, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of the assessing authority, treating the assessee as “any other financial company” and his order was affirmed by the Tribunal merely extracting his findings. This course adopted by the appellate authorities were not correct. The aspect relating to identifying the “taxable person” is an essential criterion for the charge to get attracted. The order of the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to examine the facts as regards the activity of the assessee, and set out under which sub-clause of the definition of “financial company” under section 2(5B) of the Act the assessee would fall so as to attract charge under the 1974 Act and thereafter pass appropriate orders. Referred CWT v. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana (1998) 229 ITR 1 (SC) “the rule of construction of a charging section is that before taxing any person, it must be shown that he falls within the ambit of the charging section by clear words used in the section and no one can be taxed by implication“. (AY.1997-98 to 2000-01)