This is miscellaneous application filed by applicant assessee under s. 254(2) of IT Act, 1961 stating that there is mistake apparent on record in order dt. 21st July, 2006 passed by Tribunal in aforesaid appeal of Revenue, which needs to be rectified. In this connection, learned counsel for assessee has referred to para 3 of order dt. 21st July, 2006 which reads as under: "3. When matter came up for hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of assessee. However, learned counsel for assessee Shri S.K. Goel sent fax asking for exemption from personal appearance. However, he has referred to fax dt. 5th May, 2006 wherein certain case law have been relied upon. One of case law relied upon is of Lalson Enterprises vs. Dy. CIT (2004) 82 TTJ (Del)(SB) 1048: (2004) 89 ITD 25 (Del)(SB) wherein Special Bench has held that for purposes of applying Expln. (baa) below s. 80HHC(4B) while reducing 90 per cent of receipt by way of interest from profit of business it is only 90 per cent of net interest remaining after allowing set off of interest paid which has nexus with interest received that can be reduced and not 90 per cent of gross receipt. However, learned Departmental Representative has pointed out that present appeal pertains to case for which jurisdictional High Court is Punjab & Haryana High Court. He has further pointed out that Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Rani Paliwal vs. CIT (2003) 185 CTR (P&H) 333: (2004) 268 ITR 220 (P&H) has held that Tribunal was right in holding that 90 per cent of interest that was deductible for claim under s. 80HHC of IT Act, 1961 on gross interest received by assessee and that amount of interest paid by assessee would not be deducted therefrom. Therefore, he has submitted that in view of decision of jurisdictional High Court order of CIT(A) is liable to be set aside and that of AO is to be restored." learned counsel has submitted that in aforesaid fax dt. 5th May, 2006 assessee also placed reliance on following case law: (i) Special Bench decision in case of Lalsons Enterprises vs. Dy. CIT (2004) 82 TTJ (Del)(SB) 1048: (2004) 89 ITD 25 (Del)(SB); (ii) Misc. Appln. No. 533/Del/2005 arising out of ITA No. 4149/Del/1997 in case of Liberty Footwear Co. (asst. yr. 1993-94, order dt. February, 2006); (iii) Misc. Appln. No. 532/Del/2005 arising out of ITA No. 5317/Del/1994 in case of Liberty Footwear Co. (asst. yr. 1992-93, order dt. 21st Oct., 2005); (iv) Misc. Appln. No. 529/Del/2005 arising out of ITA No. 2028/Del/2000 in case of Liberty Footwear Co. (asst. yr. 1996-97, order dt. 6th Jan., 2006). Thus, he has argued that learned Departmental Representative conveniently did not point out facts that case of Rani Paliwal vs. CIT (2003) 185 CTR (P&H) 333: (2004) 268 ITR 220 (P&H) was fully discussed in Misc. Appln. No. 533/Del/2005 in case of Liberty Footwear Co. (supra). Similarly, judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court stands discussed in Misc. Appln. No. 532/Del/2005 in case of Liberty Footwear Co. (supra). learned counsel has further submitted that Hon ble Bench, after due deliberation and discussion of aforesaid judgment of Hon ble High Court h d dismissed Departmental miscellaneous application and held that judgment of Special Bench in case of Lalsons Enterprises (supra) was applicable and netting of interest has to be considered after taking into account nexus between two. learned counsel has further submitted that in said fax dt. 17th July, 2006 assessee has also placed reliance upon decision of Tribunal in case of Paliwal Exports, Panipat, ITA No. 2374/Del/2002 for asst. yr. 1998-99 which has also not been considered by Bench while disposing of appeal of Revenue in present case. Thus, there is mistake apparent in order passed in aforesaid appeal based on decision in case of Rani Paliwal (supra) and without considering decision of co-ordinate Bench, which needs to be rectified and keeping in view rule of consistency appeal of Revenue is liable to be dismissed. learned counsel has also pointed out that decision in case of Rani Paliwal (supra) was referred before High Court of Delhi in case of CIT vs. Shri Ram Honda Power Equipment (2007) 207 CTR (Del) 689: (2007) 289 ITR 4 7 5 (Del). Their lordships of Delhi High Court did not subscribe view expressed by Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Rani Paliwal (supra) by observing as under: "In Rani Paliwal vs. CIT (2003) 185 CTR (P&H) 333: (2004) 268 ITR 220 (P&H), High Court, without any detailed discussion simply held as follows (p. 222). plain reading of cl. (baa) of Explanation to s. 80HHC of Act makes this aspect quite clear and we are of view that Tribunal was right in disallowing claim of assessee in this regard . We are afraid that there is no reasoning expressed by High Court for arriving at such conclusion. For instance, there is no discussion of CBDT circular and in particular para 32.11 thereof which indicates that netting is contemplated in Expln. (baa). Also, it does not notice effect of words included in such profits following words receipts by way of interest in said Explanation. We are therefore unable to subscribe to view taken by Punjab & Haryana High Court in Rani Paliwal vs. CIT (supra)." On other hand, learned Departmental Representative has submitted that there is no apparent mistake in order passed by Tribunal inasmuch as same has been passed on basis of decision given by jurisdictional High Court in case of Rani Paliwal (supra). Thus, it has been urged that miscellaneous application filed by assessee be dismissed. We have heard parties and perused record of case. In fax dt. 7th July, 2006 learned counsel for assessee asks for exemption from personal appearance. However, he placed reliance upon order of CIT(A), decision mentioned in fax dt. 5th May, 2006 and order of Tribunal in ITA No. 2374/Del/2001 in case of Paliwal Exports, Panipat. In fax dt. 5th May, 2006 assessee placed reliance upon decision in case of Lalson Enterprises (supra), in Misc. Appln. No. 533/Del/2005, Misc. Appln. No. 532/Del/2005 and Misc. Appln. No. 529/Del/2005. In Misc. Appln. No. 532/Del/2005 of Revenue it was contended that while allowing appeal of assessee Tribunal did not consider decision of jurisdictional High Court of Punjab & Haryana in case of Rani Paliwal vs. CIT (supra) and, as such, by not following decision of jurisdictional High Court there is mistake apparent from record and, therefore, miscellaneous application of Revenue be accepted and AO be directed to deduct gross interest received by assessee while computing deduction allowable under s. 80HHC of Act. Tribunal vide its order dt. 21st Oct., 2005 dismissed miscellaneous application filed by Revenue by observing as under: "8. We have heard rival submissions and perused material available on record. We find that this Tribunal after following decision of Special Bench of Tribunal in case of Lalsons Enterprises vs. Dy. CIT (2004) 82 TTJ (Del)(SB) 1048: (2004) 89 ITD 25 (Del)(SB) remanded issue back to file of AO and directed him to allow benefit of netting off of t h e interest paid only when there is nexus between interest paid and interest received. Special Bench of Tribunal in case of Lalsons Enterprises (supra) has held so on basis of computational provisions wherein as per s. 37 only expenditure incurred for earning of income is to be allowed as deduction under s. 37 of Act. learned Departmental Representative could not submit what was exact fact of case which was before Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Rani Paliwal (supra). We find that Punjab & Haryana High Court in abovecited case has not held that in circumstances wherein interest expenditure has been incurred for earning interest income even then for computing interest income said expenditure is not to be allowed and irrespective of real interest income 90 per cent of gross receipt of interest is to be deducted in view of Expln. (baa) to s. 80HHC. Thus, in our considered view, there is no apparent mistake in Misc. Appln. No. l65/Del/2000 of Tribunal which alone can be rectified under s. 254(2) of Act. Thus, miscellaneous application of Revenue is rejected " Following aforesaid decision given in Misc. Appln. No. 532/Del/2005 Tribunal rejected Misc. Appln. filed by Revenue being Misc. Appln. No. 533/Del/2005 in ITA No. 4149/Del/1979 (asst. yr. 1993-94) in case of Liberty Footwear Co. It is seen that in case of Paliwal Exports in ITA No. 2379/Del/2002 for asst. yr. 1998-99 issue of netting of interest for purpose of deduction under s. 80HHC had been decided in favour assessee. In recent decision dt. 26th Nov., 2007 Hon le Supreme Court in case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. CIT in Appeals (Civil) 5412/2007 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 5551 of 2007] [reported at (2007) 213 CTR (SC) 425 Ed.] has explained scope of power of rectification under s. 254(2) of Act in following words: "Scope of power of rectification As stated above, in this case we are concerned with application under s . 254(2) of 1961 Act. As stated above, expression rectification of mistake from record occurs in s. 154. It also finds place in s. 254(2). purpose behind enactment of s. 254(2) is based on fundamental principle that no party appearing before Tribunal be it assessee or Department, should suffer on account of any mistake committed by Tribunal. This fundamental principle has nothing to do with inherent powers of Tribunal. In present case, Tribunal in its order dt. 10th Sept., 2003 allowing rectification application has given finding that Samtel Colour Ltd. (supra) was cited before it by assessee but through oversight it had missed out said judgment while dismissing appeal filed by assessee on question of admissibility/allowability of claim of assessee for enhanced depreciation under s. 43A. One of important reasons for giving power of rectification to Tribunal is to see that no prejudice is caused to either of parties appearing before it by its decision based on mistake apparent from record. Rule of precedent in important aspect of legal certainty in rule of law. That principle is not obliterated by s. 254(2) of IT Act, 1961. When prejudice results from order attributable to Tribunal s mistake, error or omission, then it is duty of Tribunal to set it right. Atonement to wronged party by Court or Tribunal for wrong committed by it has nothing to do with concept of inherent power to review. In present case Tribunal was justified in exercising its powers under s. 254(2) when it was pointed out to Tribunal that judgment of co-ordinate Bench was placed before Tribunal when original order came to be passed but it had committed mistake in not considering material which was already on record. Tribunal has acknowledged its mistake, it has accordingly rectified its order. In our view, High Court was not justified in interfering with said order. We are not going by doctrine or concept of inherent power. We are simply proceeding on basis that if prejudice had resulted to party, which prejudice is attributable to Tribunal s mistake, error or omission and which error is manifest error then Tribunal would be justified in rectifying its mistake, which had been done in present case." It would appear that aforesaid order of co-ordinate Bench though cited by assessee in above fax message but said decision could not be considered by oversight while passing order dt. 21st July, 2006. Thus, prejudice is caused to assessee in not considering said decisions of co-ordinate Bench while passing order dt. 21st July, 2006. This prejudice has resulted from order attributable to Tribunal s mistake. Therefore, in view of decision of apex Court in case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. (supra), Tribunal has committed mistake apparent from record. Thus, mistake being apparent on record in order dt. 15th Nov., 2006 is required to be rectified under s. 254(2) of Act. In facts and circumstances of case and keeping in view consistent view of co-ordinate Benches, we hold that for purpose of applying Expln. (baa) below s. 80HHC(4B) while reducing 90 per cent of receipts by way of interest from profit of business it is only 90 per cent net interest received that can be reduced and not 90 per cent of gross receipt. We, therefore, set aside impugned order dt. 4th Aug., 2003 passed by CIT(A), New Delhi and restore same to file of AO with direction to recompute allowable deduction under s. 80HHC of Act accordingly. To this extent order dt. 21st July, 2006 is rectified. This order will form part of order dt. 21st July, 2006. In result, miscellaneous application filed by assessee is allowed. *** PALIWAL OVERSEAS LTD. v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX