petitioner filed a rectification application on 1st Feb., 2018 under s. 254(2) of the Act. The impugned order dt. 4th May, 2018 on the rectification application without addressing itself to the issues raised in the application proceeded to hold that the issue has been discussed threadbare in the order dt. 13th Feb., 2015. Thus, no occasion to entertain the rectification application under s. 254(2) of the Act would arise.. though the order dt. 13th Feb., 2015 does render a finding that no positive material was brought on record, there is no discussion whatsoever of the various case laws detailed in the submissions which according to the petitioner clinches the issues in support of its case that the shareholding investment by the five companies was genuine. In view of the peculiar facts of the present case, we are not only setting aside the impugned order dt. 4th May, 2018 but also the order dt. 13th Feb., 2015 to the extent it dismissed the petitioner’s appeal before it. This for the reason that, we find the order dt. 13th Feb., 2015 in the context of the material available on record, to be a non-speaking order as it gives no reasons to reject the appeal in the context of the decisions admittedly relied upon at the hearing by the petitioner