https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11533 The dominant issue was whether the ITAT, while exercising rectification power under s.254(2), could effectively rehear the appeal and deny s.11 exemption on a new ground without hearing the trust. The HC held that the earlier dismissal of the trust's appeal contained a "mistake apparent from the record" (including invoking s.11(4A) though it was not in issue and misconstruing the accounting method), so rectification to that limited extent was permissible. However, s.254(2) permits only consequential amendment and not substitution of a fresh substantive order; the ITAT exceeded jurisdiction by replacing its order. The fresh order was set aside and the matter remitted for decision on all points arising from the Commissioner's order, keeping s.11(4A) in view. en-us Wed, 15 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Jan 2026 12:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11533 The dominant issue was whether the ITAT, while exercising rectification power under s.254(2), could effectively rehear the appeal and deny s.11 exemption on a new ground without hearing the trust. The HC held that the earlier dismissal of the trust's appeal contained a "mistake apparent from the record" (including invoking s.11(4A) though it was not in issue and misconstruing the accounting method), so rectification to that limited extent was permissible. However, s.254(2) permits only consequential amendment and not substitution of a fresh substantive order; the ITAT exceeded jurisdiction by replacing its order. The fresh order was set aside and the matter remitted for decision on all points arising from the Commissioner's order, keeping s.11(4A) in view. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 15 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11533