Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Dun & Bradstreet Technologies & Data ... vs Dcit, Chennai on 22 February, 2018
आयकर अपील
य अ धकरण, 'सी' यायपीठ, चे नई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'C' BENCH, CHENNAI
ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, या यक सद य एवं
ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद य केसम$
BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
%व%वध या चका सं / M.P. Nos.128 & 129/Chny/2017
(in I.T.A. Nos.1257 & 1258/Mds/2016)
नधा&रण वष& / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2010-11
M/s Dun & Bradstreet Technologies
& Data Services (P) Ltd.,
[Formerly known as D&B Transunion The Deputy Commissioner of
Analytic and Decision Services Pvt. v. Income Tax,
Ltd.], Corporate Circle 1(1),
Level 9, Prince Infocity Phase I, Chennai.
286/11, Kandanchavadi,
Rajiv Gandhi Salai,
Chennai - 600 096.
PAN : AACCD 5293 M
()ाथ&क/Petitioner) ()+यथ,/Respondent)
)ाथ&क क. ओर से /Petitioner by : Sh. SP. Chidambaram, Advocate
)+यथ, क. ओर से/Respondent by : Shri S. Nataraja, JCIT
सन
ु वाई क. तार
ख/Date of Hearing : 16.02.2018
घोषणा क. तार
ख/Date of Pronouncement : 22.02.2018
आदे श /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The assessee has filed the present Miscellaneous Petition on the ground that the CBDT circular No.1 of 2013 dated 2 M.P. Nos.128 & 129/Chny/17 17.01.2013 was already considered by the authorities below while granting relief to the assessee.
2. Sh. SP. Chidambaram, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that this Tribunal in the earlier occasion remitted back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer only to consider the CBDT circular. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, there is no need for referring the matter once again to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration in the light of the CBDT circular No.1 of 2013.
3. On the contrary, Shri S. Nataraja, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that as per the Board's circular No.1 of 2013 dated 17.01.2013, the Assessing Officer has to examine whether the slump sale was not resulted into splitting up or reconstruction of the existing business. In other words, the Assessing Officer has to point out whether the assessee's undertaking was carved out of existing business. According to the Ld. D.R., these facts were not examined by both the authorities below, therefore, the ITAT has rightly remitted back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer.
3 M.P. Nos.128 & 129/Chny/17
4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. As per the CBDT circular, the authorities below has to consider whether the sale of the asset resulted in splitting or reconstruction of existing business or not. These facts were not examined by either of the authorities below. Even though earlier the matter was remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the matter in the light of the CBDT circular No.1 of 2013, no finding appears to have recorded by both the authorities below. Therefore, this Tribunal has remitted back the matter once again to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. In those circumstances, there is no error much less prima facie error in the order of this Tribunal, therefore, the Miscellaneous Petitions filed by the assessee have no merit.
5. In the result, both the Miscellaneous Petitions filed by the assessee stand dismissed.
Order pronounced court on 22nd February, 2018 at Chennai.
sd/- sd/-
(ए. मोहन अलंकामणी) (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन)
(A.Mohan Alankamony) (N.R.S. Ganesan)
लेखा सद य/Accountant Member या यक सद य/Judicial Member
चे नई/Chennai,
nd
4दनांक/Dated, the 22 February, 2018.
4 M.P. Nos.128 & 129/Chny/17
Kri.
आदे श क. ) त5ल%प अ6े%षत/Copy to:
1. )ाथ&क/Petitioner
2. )+यथ,/Respondent
3. आयकर आयु7त (अपील)/CIT(A)
4. आयकर आयु7त/CIT
5. %वभागीय ) त न ध/DR
6. गाड& फाईल/GF.