ORDER : Niral R. Mehta, J. 1. This Tax Appeal, filed under section 60A of the Income Tax Act,1961 [‘the Act’ for short] is arising out of order dated 03.06.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad in ITA No. 560/AHD/2020 for the Assessment Year 2013- 14 by raising following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Ld. Tribunal has erred in deleting the addition made under section 14A r.w.r 8D to the tune of Rs. 43,70,550/- merely on the basis that the related investments are out of assessee company’s old and own funds? (ii) Whether the Ld Tribunal was justified in holding that burden of establishing the nexus was wrongly attributed to the assessee and it was for the Assessing Officer to demonstrate that the tax free investments made by the assessee were not from own funds but from borrowed funds without appreciating that it is for the assessee to show that investment made was from his own funds and no from borrowed funds? (iii) Whether the Ld. Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessee’s own claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the I.T.Act 1961, at the rate of on which the GEB supplied power to its consumers ignoring the rate on which power generating company supplied its power to GEB and not considering the rate other than the selling price charged by the assessee?” 2. Brief facts of the case are stated as under: 2.1 The Assessee filed its written of income on 29.11.2013 declaring total income as NIL after setting off brought forward losses to the tune of Rs. 4,91,38,131/-. The Assessing officer finalized the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 28.03.2016 determining total income of Rs. 5,35,08,681/-. The same was set off against brought forward losses and business loss of Rs. 2,05,64,780/- and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 3,29,43,901/- under normal provisions. Addition on account of section 14A read with Rule 8D of Rs. 43,70,550/-and disallowances of deduction under section 80IA(4) of Rs. 4,07,76,334/- was made because of assessment proceedings. 2.2 The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act of Rs. 4,07,76,334/- in the original return of income from its captive power plant at Baroda. The Assessing Officer thereafter rejected the entire deduction under section 80IA(4) being excessive and unreasonable and added the same to the income of the assessee. 2.2 The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act of Rs. 4,07,76,334/- in the original return of income from its captive power plant at Baroda. The Assessing Officer thereafter rejected the entire deduction under section 80IA(4) being excessive and unreasonable and added the same to the income of the assessee. 2.3 Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the assessee filed appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to restrict disallowance under section 14A of the Act to Rs. 77,649/- and on the issue of deduction under section 80IA in favour of the assessee. 2.4 The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid, approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by way of appeal being ITA No. 560/Ahd/2020. The learned Tribunal, vide its order dated 03.06.2022, dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. 2.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid, the Revenue has approached this Court by way of present appeal. 3. Heard learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Nikunt Raval for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. B.S.Soparkar for the respondent. 4. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the learned Tribunal while dismissing the appeal confirming the view of the CIT(A) made following observations: “9. Regarding the issue of disallowance under section 14A of the Act is concerned, the Co- ordinate Bench decided the issue in favour of the assessee as follows: "We have carefully considered/the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute that the share capital and reserve and surplus of the appellant company stands at Rs.31573.31 lacs whereas the cost of investment is Rs.798.80 lacs. Thus, it can be seen that the interest free funds are far more in excess of the cost of the investment. We find that on identical set of facts, the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case in A.Y. 2009- 10 (supra) has held as under- 8. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Av the facts emerge, we find that the assessee's own funds, e, equity, reserve and surplus funds amounting to Rs.32,699.06 lakhs far exceed the tax free investments. The Impugned investments are old and out of own funds have not been rebutted. Av the facts emerge, we find that the assessee's own funds, e, equity, reserve and surplus funds amounting to Rs.32,699.06 lakhs far exceed the tax free investments. The Impugned investments are old and out of own funds have not been rebutted. Relying on the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court judgments in the case of Hitachi Home and Life Solutions (1) Ltd (supra). Torrent Power Ltd (supra)'and other judgments mentioned above, we are of the view that when the assessee possesses own' funds much more than the tax free investments, the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule & D cannot be made. There is also merit in the plea of ld. Counsel on the count that the burden of establishing the nexus has been wrongly attributed to the assesses and it was for the Assessing Officer to rebut the assessee's contention and demonstrate that the tax free investments were not from own funds but from borrowed funds. In the absence of such rebuttal, it cannot be assumed that the assesses made tax free investments out of borrowed funds. The assessee has suo moto offered Rs. 2 lakhs out of income of Rs.3,18,472/-as disallowed u/s 14A of the Act. In view of our foregoing observations and relying on Hon'ble Gujarat High Court judgments, we are of the view that no disallowance beyond what has been suo moto disallowed by the assessee can be made. In the result, the assessee's ground in this behalf is allowed and that of Revenue is dismissed. 10. The above view of the Co- ordinate Bench is further fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power IIH 340 followed in HDEC Ltd. 366 ITR 505. 11. Drawing support from the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench (supra) and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court (suprt) in our considered opinion, the suo motu disallowance of Rs. 2 lacs should meet the ends of justice. We, accordingly direct the A.O. to delete the disallowance made u/s. 14A of the Act Ground no. 1 is allowed and accordingly ground no. I in revenue's appeal in ITA No. 2855/Ahd/201 3 is dismissed." 10. The Id. DR appearing for the Revenue neither controvert this position and nor brought any decision in favour of the Revenue. We, accordingly direct the A.O. to delete the disallowance made u/s. 14A of the Act Ground no. 1 is allowed and accordingly ground no. I in revenue's appeal in ITA No. 2855/Ahd/201 3 is dismissed." 10. The Id. DR appearing for the Revenue neither controvert this position and nor brought any decision in favour of the Revenue. Therefore, respectfully following the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in the assessee's own case cited (supra), we dismiss this ground of appeal of the Revenue. 11. So far as second issue is concerned, the Id. Senior Advocate for the assessee submitted that, the issue of disallowance under section 801A(4 of the Act, the Revenue's appeal in Tax appeal No.1249 of 2014 dated 20.7.2016, the Revenue has raised the following two question of law: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in upholding the decision of CIT(A) that deduction u/s. 80-1A(4) is allowable to the assessed for generation of power for captive consumption? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the assessee's claim of deduction of Rs. 1954 crores u/s 80- IA(4) of the 1.T. Act, 1961, when the assessee had adopted rate of power generation at Rs. 4.73 per unit, rate on which the GEB supplied power to its consumers, ignoring the rate of Rs. 236 per unit, the rate on which power generating company supplied its power to GEB? 12. On these questions of law, the Hon'ble High Court held as follows: "6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have perused the order of the Tribunal. So far as issue Nos. (i) and (ii) are concerned, for the detailed reasons given in Tax Appeal No. 471 of 2009 in ground (C) and (D) where after considering the decisions of the Madras High Court in the case of l'amilnadu Petro Products Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax reported in 338 ITR 643 and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Cethar Ltd., reported in 228 Taxman 139 (Madras) (Mag.) and other decisions cited by learned counsel for the assessee, we have held the issues in favour of the assessee, the issues in the present appeal require to he answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In that view of the matter, we answer the issue Nos. In that view of the matter, we answer the issue Nos. (i) and (ii) in favour of the assessee and against the revenue." 5. It appears that the learned Tribunal while deciding the appeal placed reliance upon the judgement of the Coordinate Bench of this Court [Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice K.S.Jhaveri, as His Lordship was then and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.R.Udhwani, as His Lordships was then] in case of present assessee itself. We have considered the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Tax Appeal No. 1249/2014 as well as in Tax Appeal No. 553 of 2017 and allied matter. 6. Having considered the same, we notice that the question of law so formulated in the present appeal has already been decided and thereby, in our opinion, no further deliberation on the question of law is required at our end in the present appeal. In our view, therefore no substantial question of law arises for our consideration and accordingly, present appeal being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.