ORDER : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Heard learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms.Maithili D. Mehta for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.B.S.Soparkar for the respondent. 2. This Tax Appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) wherein, the appellant-Revenue has proposed the following substantial question of law arising from the judgment and order dated 15th September, 2023 passed by the Income Appellate Tribunal, Ahemdabad “D” Bench, Ahmedabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in ITA No.60/Ahd/2023 for Assessment Year 2018-19: “(i) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 5,04,35,666/- on account of interest expenses u/s 14A r.w.r 8D(2) (iii) of the IT Rules, 1962 amended with effect from 02/06/2016?" 3. 1. The Tribunal passed the impugned order as a common order for ITA Nos.55 to 57/Ahd/2023 for Assessment Year 2016-17 to 2018-19 filed by the respondent-Assessee along with ITA No.60 of 2023 for Assessment Year 2018-19 filed by the appellant-Revenue. 3.2. The respondent-assessee claimed dividend income of Rs.5,298/- on investment made by the assessee and also claimed interest expenses of Rs.5,04,35,666/-. The Assessing Officer thereafter made an addition of Rs.5,04,35,666/- under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules construing the investment made for earning exempt income was made out of the borrowed funds. 3.3. Being aggrieved, the assessee challenged such addition by preferring an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) and contended that the assessee has earned only Rs.5,298/- as dividend which has been disallowed in the return of income and that no expenditure was incurred by the assessee for making the investment in securities, because the assessee had sufficient reserves and surplus in the form of reserves and surplus and has no borrowed funds which were utilised for the purpose of the impugned investment. 3.4. The CIT (Appeals) after considering the fact that the assessee has share capital and reserves aggregating to Rs.897.39/- Crores as against investment of Rs.760.87/- Crores and therefore, the interest free funds were available with the assessee which was more than the investment and as such, there was no reason to invoke provisions of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules for making disallowance. 3.5. 3.5. It was further submitted by the assessee that in the earlier years also similar disallowance made by the assessee was deleted without any further disallowance by CIT (Appeals) in the appeal, which was accepted by the Department. 3.6. The assessee therefore contended that at the most disallowance can be to the extent of the dividend receipt of Rs.5,293/-. The CIT(Appeals) accepting the contentions of the assessee deleted the addition on the ground that the assessee was having sufficient interest in the funds in the form of share capital and reserves for making investments earning exempt income. 3.7. Being aggrieved, the appellant-Revenue has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the facts of the case upheld the conclusion arrived at by the CIT (Appeals) to the effect that the assessee was having the interest free funds which were more than the investment made for earning exempted income. Therefore, the presumption of the Assessing Officer that the investment so made is out of the interest bearing fund was without any basis in absence of any material to support the case of the Revenue that the assessee had utilised the borrowed funds for investment for earning exempt income. 4. In view of the above facts and concurrent findings of the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal, we were astonished how the sanction was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (for short ‘the PCIT’) to prefer an appeal and therefore the original file granting sanction was called for. 5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms.Maithili Mehta for the appellant has provided us the original file by which the sanction was granted. On perusal of the sanction granted by the PCIT, it appears that both the Assessing Officer and Range Head opined that the order of the Tribunal is acceptable, however, as the tax effect is of Rs.1,74,54,775/- which is more than the prescribed limit of the Board Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 8th August, 2019 and hence, appeal to the High Court is recommended. 6. The PCIT also appears to have ignoring such opinion by the Assessing Officer and the Range Head came to the conclusion that the order of the ITAT is not acceptable on the following reasons : “Comments of the PCIT: The decision of Hon'ble ITAT is not acceptable on merits. 6. The PCIT also appears to have ignoring such opinion by the Assessing Officer and the Range Head came to the conclusion that the order of the ITAT is not acceptable on the following reasons : “Comments of the PCIT: The decision of Hon'ble ITAT is not acceptable on merits. The reason for non-acceptance of decision of Hon'ble ITAT is mentioned as under: During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has not furnished any evidence that the interest free fund was available with it on the date of investment. The assessee has fixed assets and other investments of much more value of the interest free fund it had. Therefore, it is undisputable fact that the assessee had already invested its own fund in fixed assets and investments for the purpose of its business. Thereafter for meeting the other business requirement, it has also borrowed fund on which it is paying interest. The assessee has not been able to establish these only interest free funds were used for investment in securities wherefrom income is exempt. Further, the tax effect involved in this case is Rs.1,74,54,775/- which is more than the limit for filing appeal before the Hon'ble High Court as per the Board's Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 (amendment of Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018). Therefore, further appeal before the Hon'ble High Court is recommended in this case for AY 2018-19.” 7. From the above reasons given by the PCIT, it is clear that the same are contrary to the record as neither the Assessing Officer, CIT (Appeals) or the Tribunal has considered or given any findings of fact to the effect that the interest free funds available with the assessee was invested in fixed assets and other investment of much more value than the interest free fund and therefore, the assumption that the assessee has invested its own fund in fixed assets and investments for the purpose of business and it had a borrowed fund also on which it is paying interest and the assessee has failed to establish that only interest free funds were used for investment in securities wherefrom income is exempted. 8. The above reasoning given by the PCIT is contrary to the record and findings of fact arrived at by the CIT (Appeal) and the Tribunal and therefore, the reason for sanctioning the appeal is based on the imagination only. 9. 8. The above reasoning given by the PCIT is contrary to the record and findings of fact arrived at by the CIT (Appeal) and the Tribunal and therefore, the reason for sanctioning the appeal is based on the imagination only. 9. In the opinion of the assessing officer, reference was also made to the decision of the CIT versus Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer Company Limited reported in (2014) 42 Taxmann.Com 270 Gujarat, PCIT versus Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Limited reported in (2020) 117 Taxman.Com 625 (Bombay) and South Indian Bank Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2021 130 Taxmann.Com 170 SC while giving the opinion that the decision of the Tribunal is acceptable, however, the PCIT without reference to the opinion given by the Assessing Officer and Range Head has opined otherwise on the incorrect facts. 10. Considering the above scenario, it appears that the sanction for filing the appeal is granted by the Department without considering the facts of the case and in the mechanical manner without application of mind on part of the PCIT. We, therefore, caution the appellant-Revenue to grant sanction to file Appeal before this Court in a fit case only. 11. In that view of the matter, when there are concurrent findings of fact, we are of the opinion that no question of law muchless any substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the Tribunal which requires interference and therefore, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.