JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath, J.— This appeal is by the Revenue challenging the concurrent findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 314/Bang/99 dated July 8, 2003, along with cross-objection No. 27/Bang/99 filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1995-96. 2. The facts of this case are as hereunder: 3. The assessee filed a return of income on October 31, 1995, declaring the income of Rs. 950. The matter was taken up for scrutiny assessment in regard to the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. The Assessing Officer held that the circular of the Board bearing No. 729, dated November 1, 1995 ([1995] 216 ITR 141), is prospective and it is not retrospective in operation and further held that the assessee is not entitled to claim exemption under Section 80HHC of the Act. Accordingly, the order of assessment was passed on March 24, 1997. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) contending that a sum of Rs. 16,05,363 should be treated as "written off as bad debts" and the Commissioner of Income Tax allowed the appeal in regard to the claim made by the assessee under Section 80HHC of the Act and rejected the claim of the assessee to treat a sum of Rs. 16,05,363 as bad debts. Against the same, the Department filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and for not considering the relief of bad debt, the assessee filed cross-objections. Both the cases were taken up together by the Tribunal and the Tribunal rejected the appeal of the Revenue and allowed the cross-objection and granted relief to the assessee regarding bad debts. Challenging these two orders, the present appeal is filed raising the following substantial questions of law. (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in granting exemption under Section 80HHC without considering Circular No. 729, dated November 1, 1995, [1995] 216 ITR 141, which has no retrospective effect and is prospective in nature ? (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in treating a sum of Rs. 16,05,363 as bad debts ? 5. We have heard the counsel for the parties. (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in treating a sum of Rs. 16,05,363 as bad debts ? 5. We have heard the counsel for the parties. So far as granting of exemption under Section 80HHC has to be examined by the Assessing Officer afresh in order to know whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction by following the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. God Granites and Others, (2003) 262 ITR 567 SC. Since the same has not been considered, we are of the opinion that the matter has to be remitted back to the Assessing Officer to consider the same. With regard to question No. 2 is concerned, according to us, it is the Assessing Officer who has to examine whether there is really a bad debt and the same is written off. It is a question of fact and has to be assessed by the Assessing Officer by looking into the relevant circumstances, since the Revenue contends that there are no bad debts and that the persons who have purchased the granites in the local market have actually paid the consideration to the assessee. Whether really the said consideration is received by the assessee or not has to be assessed by the Assessing Officer. Since the same not been done by the Assessing Officer, we are of the opinion that without answering the questions of law framed herein, we have to set aside the orders impugned herein and remand the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law.