JUDGMENT B.P. Colabawalla, J. - By this appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the "I. T. Act, 1961"), the appellant - revenue takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 27th May, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench - I, Mumbai (for short, the "ITAT"), insofar as the revenue''s appeal before the ITAT was dismissed. The Assessment Year (for short "A.Y."), in the present appeal is A.Y. 2010-11. Before the ITAT, the revenue had challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [for short, "CIT(A)"] dated 30th July, 2013. By the said order, the CIT(A) set aside the order of the Assessing Officer (for short "A.O.") passed under Section 143(3) of the I. T. Act, 1961. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present controversy are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of developers of Bio-Tech Park, construction, leasing and sale of commercial properties. In the return of income tax filed by the assessee on 14th October, 2010, the assessee declared the total income at Rs. Nil under the normal provisions and book profits of Rs. 6.70 Crores under Section 115JB of the I. T. Act, 1961. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny and the A.O. passed an order under Section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 12.76 Crores and computed the tax to be paid at 30 % of Rs. 3.82 Crores. The A.O. was of the view that out of the total income as reflected in the profit and loss account of the assessee, the income from sub-lease of land amounting to Rs. 7.15 Crores had to be assessed under the head "incomes from other sources" rather than "business income". He was, therefore, of the opinion that the ''business loss'' could not be set off against such income. The A.O. was of the view that in the absence of any business activities, the assessee was not entitled to claim the business loss. The A.O. further disallowed the interest on borrowed capital on the ground that the assessee could not substantiate its claim that the borrowed capital was exclusively utilised for acquisition of construction of the property in question. 3. Being aggrieved by this assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The A.O. further disallowed the interest on borrowed capital on the ground that the assessee could not substantiate its claim that the borrowed capital was exclusively utilised for acquisition of construction of the property in question. 3. Being aggrieved by this assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The first ground taken by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority was that the A.O. erred in not following the decision of the ITAT in the appellant''s own case for the A.Y. 2006-07 wherein the sub-lease income was held assessable under the head "Income From Business" and not under "Income from Other Sources". The CIT(A), after considering what the ITAT had held in the assessee''s own case for the A.Y. 2006-07 and more particularly in paragraph 6 thereof, accepted the contention of the assessee and set aside the order of the A.O. on this ground. 4. The second ground on which the order of the A.O. was challenged before the First Appellate Authority was that the A.O. erred in not considering the income recorded under different heads in the Books of Accounts, as falling within the head income from other sources or under the head income from house property and not under the head income from business. The First Appellate Authority, after considering the facts of the case came to the conclusion that this very issue came up before the First Appellate Authority in the assessee''s own case for the A.Y. 2009-10 as well as the earlier A.Ys. wherein this issue was decided in favour of the assessee. This being the case, on this ground also the A.O''s. order passed under Section 143(3) of the I.T.Act, 1961 was set aside. The third ground of appeal taken by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority was that the A.O. erred in making an addition on the ground of notional income on deposit for arriving at only value of the house property and disallowing the claim for deduction under Section 24 (b) of the I.T.Act, 1961 (in part). The First Appellate Authority, after considering the facts of the case came to a finding that this issue also came up for consideration before it in the assessee''s own case for the A.Y. 2009-10 as well as in earlier A.Ys. and which was decided in favour of the assessee. The First Appellate Authority, after considering the facts of the case came to a finding that this issue also came up for consideration before it in the assessee''s own case for the A.Y. 2009-10 as well as in earlier A.Ys. and which was decided in favour of the assessee. In these facts, even on this ground the First Appellate Authority [CIT(A)] set aside the order of the A.O. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) dated 24th June, 2013, the revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT. Before the ITAT, two grounds of challenge were laid to the order of the CIT(A). The first contention raised by the revenue was that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the income on sub-lease of land and maintenance income could be classified under the head business income and allowing various business expenses claimed by the assessee in the absence of any business activities. The second ground raised before the ITAT was that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition in respect of the interest on borrowed capital utilized for construction of the property. When this appeal came up for hearing before the ITAT, the assessee''s advocate pointed out that the issues raised in the appeal were answered in favour of the assessee by earlier orders of the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2009-10. After considering the earlier orders passed by the Tribunal, the ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. It is in these circumstances that the matter has come up before us. 6. When this matter had come up on 23rd August, 2018, Mr Suresh Kumar, during the course of his arguments, stated that in the impugned order the Tribunal had followed its own view for the A.Y. 2009-10 and applied it for the A.Y. 2010-11 (A.Y. in question in the present appeal). Mr. Suresh Kumar fairly stated that the order of the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2009-10 was challenged before this Court by filing Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 199 of 2015 but the same came to be rejected on 9th July, 2015 for non-compliance of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. Mr. Suresh Kumar fairly stated that the order of the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2009-10 was challenged before this Court by filing Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 199 of 2015 but the same came to be rejected on 9th July, 2015 for non-compliance of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. He submitted that larger public interest would suffer grossly in the event we do not allow him to point out the legal errors in the order passed by the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2009-10, especially since it was followed for the A.Y. 2010-11. Not\ to cause any prejudice to the revenue we acceded to this request and that is how even Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 199 of 2015 was tagged along with this appeal. 7. Be that as it may, in the facts narrated by us earlier, Mr. Suresh Kumar submitted before us that the impugned order gives rise to the following substantial questions of law which read thus- "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in Law, the Hon''ble ITAT was justified, in upholding the order of the First Appellate Authority regarding deduction of interest from rental income despite the failure of the company to prove that the funds taken were for the construction or acquisition of buildings ?. (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in Law, the Hon''ble ITAT was justified, in ignoring the proviso to section 24 of the Act that require the production of a certificate from the person to whom interest is payable to the extent that the interest is payable for the purpose of acquisition of construction of the property? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in Law, the Honourable ITAT was perverse in not considering the facts as brought on record by the AO? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in Law, the Hon''ble ITAT was justified in not considering the findings of the AO that interest being claimed as deduction from rental income whereas the borrowed funds did not have any nexus with the construction or the acquisition of these properties? " 8. (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in Law, the Hon''ble ITAT was justified in not considering the findings of the AO that interest being claimed as deduction from rental income whereas the borrowed funds did not have any nexus with the construction or the acquisition of these properties? " 8. Mr Suresh Kumar submitted that the ITAT was not justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) regarding deduction of interest from rental income despite the failure of the assessee to prove that the funds taken were for the construction or acquisition of the buildings. Mr Suresh Kumar further submitted that the ITAT did not consider the findings of the A.O. that the interest claimed as a deduction from rental income could not be permitted when the borrowed funds did not have any nexus with the construction or acquisition of these properties. He further submitted that the ITAT had ignored the proviso to Section 24 of the I.T.Act, 1961 that require production of a certificate from the person to whom interest is payable to the extent the is interest payable on capital borrowed for the purpose of acquisition or construction of the property. For all these reasons, Mr Suresh Kumar submitted that the impugned order gave rise to substantial questions of law and as reproduced by us above. He, therefore, as a consequence, prayed that the appeal be admitted and placed for final hearing. 9. We find these submissions of Mr. Suresh Kumar wholly unmeritorious. At the outset, we must state that question No.2 as reproduced by us above, was never raised nor argued by the revenue before the ITAT. This being the case, we find that question No.2 certainly does not give any rise to any substantial question of law from the impugned order. 10. As far as question Nos. 1,3 and 4 are concerned, we find that they too do not give rise to any substantial question of law as they are decided only considering the factual aspects of the matter. The ITAT has clearly recorded that the CIT(A), by relying on his own order for the same assessee, for the earlier A.Y. 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 had observed that the assessee''s business for development of Bio-Tech Park was already up and commenced, and therefore, it was held that the sub-lease income was assessable as business income. The ITAT has clearly recorded that the CIT(A), by relying on his own order for the same assessee, for the earlier A.Y. 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 had observed that the assessee''s business for development of Bio-Tech Park was already up and commenced, and therefore, it was held that the sub-lease income was assessable as business income. In fact, these orders of the CIT(A) were subjected to further appeal before the ITAT, which confirmed the orders of the CIT(A). 11. Further, CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the A.O. in respect of interest on borrowed capital utilized for construction of the property. Here also, CIT(A), by following his own order in the case of the very same assessee for the A.Y. 2008-09, had deleted the addition made by the A.O. This decision of the CIT(A) was once again confirmed by the ITAT. For that A.Y. the ITAT held that if the interest is paid by the assessee on the capital used for acquiring or construction of the assets that are used for earning taxable income, then his claim for interest expenditure has to be allowed. The relevant finding of the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2008-09 is at para 15 of the said order. Taking this into consideration, the ITAT held that there was no justifiable reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A). Looking to the findings given by the ITAT and considering that for the earlier A.Ys. the ITAT has already held in favour of the assessee, following the rule of consistency, we do not think that the questions as framed in the present appeal give rise to any substantial question of law. Further, we do not find that the impugned order either suffers from any perversity or is vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record, which in turn, would give rise to any substantial question of law, requiring our consideration under Section 260A of the I. T. Act, 1961. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.