IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 29 OF 2009 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... Appellant Versus M/S. FLEX ART GOA ... Respondent Mrs. Asha Dessai, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. Farrokh V. Irani with Mr. Hari S. Raheja and Mr. Sudin M. S. Usgoankar, Advocates for the Respondent. Coram:- A. S. OKA & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 30th June, 2010 P.C.:- We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. The challenge in this Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is to the judgment and order dated 9th April, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji. The judgment and order has been passed in rectification application seeking rectification of the order of the Tribunal dated 26th December, 2008. By the judgment and order dated 26th December, 2008, the Tribunal had held that the assessee was not carrying on any business of manufacture or production and was therefore not entitled to relief under Section 80IB of the said Act, 1961. The process adopted by the Respondent - assessee involved slitting of aluminium foils into customized width, mounting the same on printing machine and printing necessary text on it. 3. The rectification was sought on the basis of the contention that the view taken by the Tribunal is completely contrary to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of India Cine Agencies Vs. CIT & Computer Graphics Ltd. {308 ITR 98 (SC)}. The Tribunal allowed the rectification application and held that the Respondent - assessee was entitled to relief under Section 80IB of the said Act in accordance with law. 4. It is not in dispute that the issue whether the assessee was carrying on any business of manufacture or production is settled by the decision of this Court in Tax Appeal No. 5/2010 decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 12th April, 2010. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that while deciding a Misc. Application made by the Respondent - assessee under Section 254(2), the Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction vested in it and enlarged the scope of the rectification proceedings. Her submission is that the alleged error could not have been rectified under Section 254(2) of the said Act. 5. We find that the law on this aspect is well settled. In the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.{(2008)305 ITR 227 (SC)}, the Apex Court held that non-consideration of a binding decision of jurisdictional High Court or of Apex Court can be said to be a mistake apparent from record which can be rectified under Section 254(2) of the said Act. In view of the said decision, we find that no substantial question of law arises in this Appeal. Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. A. S. OKA, J. F. M. REIS, J. at*