Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

This appeal is filed by Income Tax Department through Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi, having office at Room

No.- 323, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhiâ€" 110002 (for brevity the ‘appellant’), under Section 252(1) r/w Section 252(3) of the

Companies Act, 2013 (for brevity ‘the Act’) read with Rule 7 & 9 of Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of

Companies) Rules, 2016 by Registrar of Companies, the respondent herein.

The respondent No. 2, M/s Next Generation Exim Private Limited, having its registered office at C- 20, Basement, Dayanand Colony, Lajpat

Nagar- IV, New Delhi, South Delhi- 110020, bearing CIN U51909 DL2009 PTC188719, Mr. Anil Kumar and Mr. Ashu Dhingra, are Respondents

No. 3 and 4 who are Directors of the Company.

It is submitted by the appellants that ITD System reflects that a payment of Rs. 10,60,96,140/-, 13,21,18,885/-, 12,20,01,424/-, 11,22,84,175/-,

21,97,84,804/-, and 8,15,19,957/- had been received by the Respondent- Company in their two bank accounts, namely, HDFC Bank and Kotak

Mahindra. Further, the Respondent Company, in the F.Ys., for various A.Ys., respectively in their two banks accounts, namely, HDFC Bank and

Kotak Mahindra had not filed its returns of income for A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2017-18, thereby concealing the material facts for assessment during the

above F.Ys.

The appellant has further submitted that it appears that there is tax evasion, which has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 153C.

Notices dated 28.03.2019 and 17.09.2018 u/sec.153A r/w sec.153C of the I.T. Act, for each year have been issued to Respondent-Company, asking

to furnish ITR for A.Ys 2012-13 to 2017-18. On 29.10.2018 the Appellant sent separate notices dated 29.10.2018 u/sec.142(1) for each year in

connection with assessment for A.Ys 2012-13 to 2017-18.

After approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 6, notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, dated 24.06.2019 was issued. The said

notice was never replied to, by the Directors nor by any other representative of the company.

The Assessment Orders dated 12.12.2018 where passed against the respondent no. 2 company for the F.Ys. 2012-13 to 2017-18. Further penalty

orders were also passed against respondent no. 2 company, for the F.Ys. 2012-13 to 2017-18.

On perusal of the MCA website, the appellant has come to know that the the name of the respondent company was struck off in terms of provision

of Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, read with Rule 7 and Rule 9 of the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of

Companies) Rules, 2016 vide notice by the ROC.

The appellant submits that in the Month of December 2018, on perusal of the documents filed with the ROC, the Master Data of the Respondent

No. 2 Company was reflecting the status of the Companies as “strike offâ€. The appellant has not annexed or mentioned any details with respect

to the public notice issued by ROC in form STK-5 or STK-7 in the appeal. The copy of Master Data reflecting the status of Respondent No. 2

Company as “Strike offâ€​ is filed with the appeal. Hence, the request of the appellant for revival of the name of the Company can be considered.

The respondents were served with appeal and service affidavit is filed. None appeared for respondents no. 2 to 4, hence they have been proceeded

ex parte vide order dated 01.10.2019.

The appellant submitted that the Income Tax Department being aggrieved person and also creditor under Section 252(1) and 252(3) of the

Companies Act, 2013, by the removal of the name of the company from the register by the registrar of the company as for the reopening of

assessment proceedings the company has to be in existence.

In above circumstances, this appeal is allowed. The Registrar of companies is therefore directed to restore the name of the Respondent Company

in their Register and also proceed to take such other and further penal action against the respondent in accordance with the statutory provisions. The

name of the respondent Company shall then, as a consequence, stand restored to the Register of the Registrar of Companies, as if the name of the

company had not been struck off in accordance with Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013.

The appeal is allowed and disposed of.

Let the copy of the order be served to the parties.