Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal filed by the Revenue (IT Department) under Section 260a of the IT Act against an order dt. 23rd Sept. , 2003, passed by ITAT (for short called Tribunal) in case No. MA/99/ind/2003--20/ind/2003 arising out of two appeals 1/ind/1995 and 2/ind/1996 relating to asst. yrs. 1992-93 and 1993-94. ( 2. ) IN fact, the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal at the instance of assessee (MPFC) who had made an application under Section 254 (2) of the Act for rectification of the main order passed in two appeals filed by the assessee and decided on 10th Feb. , 1999. ( 3. ) BY impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the application made by the assessee seeking rectification in the main appellate order and substituted para 7 of the appellate order as follows : "7. We, however, respectfully following the decision of Honble Supreme Court on the issue in the case of Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT, (2003) 259 ITR 51 (SC) relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative in application for rectification, decide the chargeability of tax on interest received during the previous year by the assessee on actual receipt basis. In the aforesaid case, the Honble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that reference to Section 145 of the IT Act, 1961, was incorporated w. e. f. October, 1991, in Section 21 of the Interest-tax Act, 1974. Sec. 145 of the IT Act permits income chargeable under the head profits and gains of business or profession or income from other sources to be computed in accordance with either the cash or mercantile system of accounting, as may be regularly employed by the assessee. Where the assessee has followed the cash system of accounting in respect of interest income, Section 5 of the Interest-tax Act allows the calculation or computation of chargeable interest on the basis of interest actually received. 7. 1 We, thus, set aside the first appellate order in this regard with direction to the AO to Charge tax on interest received by the assessee on actual receipt basis during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. 8. In the result, appeal is allowed. " ( 4. 7. 1 We, thus, set aside the first appellate order in this regard with direction to the AO to Charge tax on interest received by the assessee on actual receipt basis during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. 8. In the result, appeal is allowed. " ( 4. ) IT is against this substitution which was done by the Tribunal by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 254 of the Act, the Revenue has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal. ( 5. ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused record of the case, we find no cause to admit the appeal as in our opinion no question of law as is required to be made out under Section 260a ibid arises out of the order of the Tribunal. ( 6. ) MERE perusal of the impugned order of Tribunal quoted supra would indicate that the rectification was done or was required to be done on the strength of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (2003) 259 ITR 51 (SC ). It is in this case, their Lordships have explained the manner in which the tax is to be calculated on the interest earned by the assessee. So the rectification had to be done to make the direction of the Tribunal to the taxing authorities to follow the law laid down by the apex Court. Indeed, the law laid down by the Supreme Court being binding on all Courts/tribunals in our country by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the rectification had become necessary so as to make the judicial orders in accord with the law explained by the Supreme Court. ( 7. ) WE, therefore, do not find any error of law committed by the Tribunal in invoking their powers of rectification under Section 254 of the Act and pass the proper order as indicated above. In view of this discussion, no question of law arises for this Court to admit this appeal. ( 8. ) APPEAL, thus, fails and is dismissed in limine.