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

This appeal is filed by Income Tax Department through Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25(1), New Delhi, having office at Room No.

225D, 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 Tatva Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at Pocket- E, 166C, Dilshad Garden, New Delhi- 110095,

bearing CIN U72900 DL2010 PTC205941, Mr. Amit Sharma is Respondent No. 3 who is Director of the Company.

It is submitted that the information is available with the Revenue through NMS/ITD, AIR/CIB Statements and Individual Transactions (ITS) and

26AS, from where it is observed that the respondent no. 2 Company has received Fee for Professional/Technical services amounting to Rs. 1,10,130/-

on which TDS has been deducted by the payer under Section 194J of the IT Act, during the A.Y. 2011-12 and it is also observed that the

Respondent- Company has purchased units of mutual and time/term deposit of Rs. 2,75,000/- during the A.Y. 2011-12 . As per the IT system, the

Respondent did not file its ITR, for A.Y. 2011-12, and did not disclose material facts necessary for assessment. The Appellant has reason to believe

that estimated amount of Rs. 3,30,065/- has escaped the assessment.

The Appellant has further submitted that it appears that there is tax evasion which has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 &

148 of the Income Tax Act for income against the credit for amount of Rs. 3,30,065/-. Denial to restore the name of the respondent company in the

Register of the ROC, will be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in the long run.

After approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 6, notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, dated 20.06.2019 was issued. The said

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

The Assessment Order was passed dated 15.12.2018 and further Penalty Order was also passed against Respondent No. 2 Company, for the A.Y.

2011-12 .

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 Respondent herein had issued Public notice bearing No. ROC/DELHI/248/STK-5/721 dated 27.04.2017. Consequently, Appellant’s name

was struck off vide notice bearing No. ROC/DELHI/248(5)/STK- 7/2879 dated on 30.06.2017 (Company’s name appearing at Sl. No. 20202)

whereby name of 22864 companies have been struck off w.e.f. 07.06.2017 from the Registrar of Companies.

The Respondents were served with Appeal and Service Affidavit is filed. None appeared for Respondents No. 2 and 3, hence they have been

proceeded ex parte vide order dated 14.12.2020.

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.