Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2023) 09 NCLAT CK 3570

Anamic Mehta vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2 & Ors

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi · Decided on 29 September 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Justice Rakesh Kumar, Member (Judicial) · Dr. Alok Srivastava, Member (Technical)
CASE NUMBER
COMPANY APPEAL (AT) No.36/2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 346 words

ORDER

29.09.2023: IA No.1039 of 2023 has been filed for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal. We have perused the IA and found that the reasons stated in the IA are sufficient for condoning the delay. Accordingly the delay in refiling the appeal is hereby condoned. IA No.1039/2023 stands disposed off.

Heard Mr. Pallav Mongia, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Parth Semwal, learned counsel for Income Tax Department and Mr. Durga Dutt, learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of R3 and R4.

The present appeal has been preferred under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 against order and judgement dated 20.12.2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Allahabad in an appeal i.e.CA 509/ALD of 2019 which was filed under Section 252(1) and 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The appeal was filed before the NCLT by the Income Tax Department for restoration of the name of the company i.e. Aryan Comotrade Private Ltd. The name of the company was struck off due to non-submission or returns and statements before the ROC continuously for three years. The appellant in the present appeal is one of the ex-director of the company in question. Learned counsel for the Income Tax Department submits that the assessment proceedings were going and subsequently order was passed and during pendency of the appeal entire tax has been realised from the appellant.

During hearing of this appeal, learned counsel for both the parties have agreed to the extent that ROC can be directed to struck off the name of the company, but such order may be passed with prospective effect.

With the consent of both the parties the order dated 20.12.2021 is hereby set aside. It is clarified that this order shall be deemed to take effect from the date of this order. The ROC is directed to strike off the name of the company from its register.

It is clarified that we have not dealt with the merit of the appeal and order has been passed with the consent of both the parties.

The appeal stands disposed off.