Judgment Shantanu Kemkar, J. Heard on the question of admission. By filing this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act), the appellant – Revenue has challenged the order dated 30.03.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore (for short the Tribunal) in Miscellaneous Appeal No.108/IND/2006 in respect of assessment year 2000-01. 2. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal while exercising the powers of rectification under Section 254 (2) of the Act has committed error in recalling the entire order and taking a different view than the view which was taken in the original order dated 19.10.2006 passed in ITA No.673/IND/2005. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Tribunal has corrected the operative part of the order making it in consonance to the findings which were recorded by it in favour of the assessee. 4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the original order and the order passed by the Tribunal in the matter of rectification, we find that the Tribunal has not taken a different view than the view, which was earlier taken. The Tribunal has merely corrected the mistake, which occurred in para 19.2 of the original order, which necessarily was required to have been in conformity with the findings, which were recorded by the Tribunal in para 19.1. Para 19.1 of the original order was relating to the findings recorded by it and the same were recorded in favour of the assesse. However, in the operative paragraph 19.2, the Tribunal has mistakenly observed contrary to the findings recorded in para 19.1, and therefore, the Tribunal has corrected the mistake by replacing para 19.2 of the order and making it in conformity with the reasoned findings which were already recorded in favour of the assesse. In our considered view, such a mistake can always be corrected by the Tribunal while exercising its powers of rectification and it cannot be said that the Tribunal has reversed its findings recorded earlier. 5. In our considered view, such a mistake can always be corrected by the Tribunal while exercising its powers of rectification and it cannot be said that the Tribunal has reversed its findings recorded earlier. 5. So far as the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Malwa Texturising P. Ltd. [(2007) 292 ITR 488 (MP)], we find that the same has no application to the facts of the present case as in that case instead of rectifying the mistake, the entire matter was considered and the findings, which were recorded earlier, were reversed by the Tribunal, whereas in the present case, as observed earlier, the findings were recorded in para 19.1 in favour of the respondent/assesse, whereas contrary to those findings, the operative paragraph 19.2 of the original order was passed, and as such, on a prayer for rectification, it was corrected and paragraph 19.2 was brought in conformity with the findings which were earlier recorded by the Tribunal in para 19.1, which is certainly within the ambit of the powers vested in the Tribunal under Section 254 (2) of the Act. 6. In the circumstances, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal to be decided by this Court. 7. As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.