ORDER 1. This appeal, under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been filed against the order dated 30.12.2009, passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Circuit Bench, Ranchi) in Income Tax Appeal bearing I.T.A.Nos. 165/Ran/2008 and 205/Ran/2008 for the assessment year 2004-05. 2. Mr. Binod Poddar, Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellant (referred as the assessee), submits that the assessee is not in a position to comply the order passed on 22.6.2012 in this appeal. 3. Then in support of this appeal, he submitted as follows : i). The income from sale of scrap reduced the cost of production and thereby the income from sale of scrap increased the export income ii) Instead of remanding the matter only on one aspect, the entire matter should have been remanded by the Tribunal. iii). The Audit Report was not considered either by the Assessing Officer or by the appellate authority or by the Tribunal. iv) It does not appear from the order of the Tribunal that the judgments produced before it were considered. 4. It appears that against the order of assessment, the assessee as well as the Revenue preferred appeals on certain aspects before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur (CIT(A) for short). Against the appellate order, both the parties moved the Tribunal on those aspects. 5. The assessee manufactures and processes automobile components such as hubs, ring, gears, fly-wheel etc. Its sale is local as well as export sale. It interalia claimed that a sum of Rs.20,10,947/-on account of sale of scraps was integral part of export business and therefore could not have been excluded from the export turnover. Certain judgments were cited by the assessee. The Department denied and disputed the said contentions. It also relied on the judgment of Supreme Court. 6. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal interalia held as follows : “7. We have heard both the parties and carefully considered their submissions. The ld. CIT(A)has proceeded to include all the items except sale of scrap in export turnover for computation of profits eligible for exemption u/s 10B on the ground that “they are intimately linked with export turnover”. In our view, the aforesaid stand taken by the ld. CIT(A) is not correct. “Export turnover” is defined in section 10B as also 80HHC. The ld. CIT(A)has proceeded to include all the items except sale of scrap in export turnover for computation of profits eligible for exemption u/s 10B on the ground that “they are intimately linked with export turnover”. In our view, the aforesaid stand taken by the ld. CIT(A) is not correct. “Export turnover” is defined in section 10B as also 80HHC. The impugned receipts neither represent the consideration received for the items exported nor have they been received in convertible foreign exchange. The impugned receipts are local receipts and therefore do not constitute export turnover. The Assessing Officer has rightly excluded them from export turnover for working out the profits eligible for exemption u/s 10B. In this view of the matter, the eligible profits u/s 10B as computed by the AO has correctly been reduced from the “book profit” under section 115JB. The action of the Assessing Officer is in conformity with the law. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is, therefore, vacated and that of the Assessing Officer restored.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. In our view learned Tribunal has rightly recorded the said finding of fact. No authority was cited in support of its contention by the assessee before us. 8. The next contention of assessee is that the Tribunal should have accepted that the assessee obtained unsecured loan of Rs.57 Lakhs from the HUF of Major General (Retired) P.P. Subherwal. 9. On this, the Tribunal interalia held as follows : “14. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer perused the audit report in form No.3CD filed before the Assessing Officer, in which it was stated that the assessee had obtained unsecured loan aggregating to Rs.57 Lakhs from the HUF of Major General (Retired) P.P. Subherwal during the year under appeal. The Assessing Officer examined the matter and noticed that the aforesaid narration in the audit report was factually incorrect inasmuch as it was only Rs.50 lakhs which was shown in the ledger account of the HUF while the remaining amount of Rs.7 lakhs was shown in the ledger account of Major General (Retired) P.P. Subherwal in his individual capacity and not in his HUF capacity. The Assessing Officer further enquired into the matter and noticed that there was no debit of Rs.50 lakhs in the Savings Bank Account No.15628 of the HUF of Major General (Retired) P.P. Subherwal. The Assessing Officer further enquired into the matter and noticed that there was no debit of Rs.50 lakhs in the Savings Bank Account No.15628 of the HUF of Major General (Retired) P.P. Subherwal. He, therefore, inferred that the cheque by which the impugned sum received was not collected from the account of the HUF. Another important thing which the Assessing Officer noticed was that the said sum of Rs.50 lakhs was actually utilized by another company of the group namely M/s Arush Metal Casting Pvt. Ltd., in which Major General (Retired) P.P. Subherwal was a shareholder. The Assessing Officer, therefore, inferred that the assessee was being used as conduit between the HUF of Major General (Retired ) P.P. Subherwal and M/s Arush Metal Casting Pvt. Ltd. It is in this background that the Assessing Officer held that the impugned loan transaction was not genuine and accordingly brought the impugned sum to the charge of Income-tax.” 15. “Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Oficer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It was submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that the impugned loan was taken from Sanjay Sabherwal on behalf of HUF. It was further stated that the loan was taken by the cheque, which was duly debited tot he account of Sanjay Sabherwal. It is in view of the aforesaid explanation that the ld. CIT (A) has deleted the addition. 16. “We have heard both the parties. In support of appeal, the learned D.R. Supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer while the ld. Authorized representative for the assessee supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Perusal of the assessment order shows that it was NOT the plea of the assessee before the Assessing Officer that the impugned loan was taken fro the HUF through Sanjay Sabherwal. What was stated before the Assessing Officer was that loan was taken from HUF which would naturally mean that the loan was given by the Karta of HUF. There is no material on record to hold that Sanjay Sabherwal was the Karta of HUF. In fact, what was stated before the Assessing Officer was that it was the HUF of Major General (Retired) P.P. Subherwal and not the HUF of Sanjay Sabharwal. Besides, there is no material on record to establish the creditworthiness of Sanjay Sabharwal to advance the aforesaid sum. In fact, what was stated before the Assessing Officer was that it was the HUF of Major General (Retired) P.P. Subherwal and not the HUF of Sanjay Sabharwal. Besides, there is no material on record to establish the creditworthiness of Sanjay Sabharwal to advance the aforesaid sum. The Assessing Officer could not examine the creditworthiness of Sanjay Saberwal as no such plea was taken before him. Taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it appropriate to set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) and the Assessing Officer in this behalf and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to examine the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. 10. In our opinion, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in remanding the matter on these questions of facts. 11. After hearing Mr. Poddar at length, in our opinion, no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.