AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hemant Kumar Sarangi, Member (T)
The appeal filed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre Circle - 26, New Delhi, against the striking off of the name of the M/s. Ceram Sales Private Limited ("the company"), from the register of companies.
It is stated that, the company is a private limited company incorporated under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956, on 27.02.2007 having CIN No. U51909 DL2007 PTC159772 with Authorized capital is Rs. 25,00,000/- and paid up capital of is Rs. 23,75,000/-. The registered office of the company is stated to be at House No. 174, Block - D, PKT - 16, Sector - 7, Rohini, New Delhi - 110085. Therefore, the jurisdiction lies with this Tribunal.
The Appellant states that, search and seizure operation was carried out on one Sh. Anand Kumar Jain, another Sh. Naresh Kumar Jain & others on 17.12.2015 engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries. During the course of search large number of incriminating documents were found and seized. While examining the seized documents the assessing officer of searched person came across with certain documents which pertained to M/s. Macro IT System Pvt. Ltd. and after recording his satisfaction to this effect he has forwarded the satisfaction note and the relevant documents relating to M/s. Macro IT Systems Pvt. Ltd. to the appellant being the AO of person other than the searched person (in both these cases the AO is the same).
The Appellant further states that, upon examining these seized documents and on analysis of the bank statements and the electronic data seized during the course of search it is found that the respondent company has undertaken certain financial transactions with the shell companies of Jain Brothers who are the entry operators.
The appellant further states that, the Assessing Officer of the searched person recorded his Satisfaction Note stating that Jain Brothers had created a folder in the Tally Software, with the name of the company as "JAIN" for recording the details of the accommodation entries being provided by them to various persons including M/s. Ceram Sales Pvt. Ltd. and further recorded that seized documents relates to the respondent company and handed over the seized documents alongwith the satisfaction note to the Assessing Officer of the respondent company.
In spite of proper service to the respondent nos. 2 to 4 none appeared. Hence, the case was proceeded ex-parte against the said Respondents vide order dated 21.05.2019. The appellant has filed affidavit of service.
It is further stated by the Appellant, that the notice dated 28.03.2018 under section 153A read with section 153C and separate notice dated 30.11.2018 under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 in connection with A.Y. 2012-13 to 2017-18 was issued to M/s. Ceram Sales Private Limited and that assessment/reassessment proceedings so initiated were getting barred by limitation on 31.12.2018 as per the provision of section 153C of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Appellant further submits that, various Assessment Orders have been passed under section 153C/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Penalty Orders under section 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) details of which are as follows:
A. Y.
Particulars of Order
Demand Amount
2012-13
Assessment Order dated 26.12.2018 u/s 153C / 144 & Rectification Order dated 08.07.2019 along with demand notice u/s 156.
Rs. 4,62,25,890/-
2012-13
Penalty Order dated 24.06.2019 u/s 271(1)(c) along with demand notice u/s 156.
Rs. 2,29,84,565/-
2013-14
Assessment Order dated 26.12.2018 u/s 153C / 144 & Rectification Order dated 08.07.2019 along with demand notice u/s 156.
Rs. 4,18,65,080/-
2013-14
Penalty Order dated 24.06.2019 u/s 271(1)(c) along with demand notice u/s 156.
Rs. 2,22,92,191/-
2014-15
Assessment Order dated 26.12.2018 u/s 153C / 144 & Rectification Order dated 08.07.2019 along with demand notice u/s 156.
Rs. 2,22,92,010/-
2014-15
Penalty Order dated 24.06.2019 u/s 271(1)(c) along with demand notice u/s 156.
Rs. 1,11,68,935/-
2015-16
Assessment Order dated 26.12.2018 u/s 153C / 144 & Rectification Order dated 08.07.2019 along with demand notice u/s 156.
Rs. 1,93,70,320/-
2015-16
Penalty Order dated 24.06.2019 u/s 271(1)(c) along with demand notice u/s 156.
Rs. 1,21,39,571/-
2016-17
Assessment Order dated 26.12.2018 u/s 153C / 144 & Rectification Order dated 08.07.2019 along with demand notice u/s 156.
Rs. 1,05,78,190/-
2016-17
Penalty Order dated 24.06.2019 u/s 271(1)(c) along with demand notice u/s 156.
Rs. 68,74,216/-
2017-18
Assessment Order dated 26.12.2018 u/s 153C / 144 & Rectification Order dated 08.07.2019 along with demand notice u/s 156.
Rs. 1,02,920/-
2017-18
Penalty Order dated 24.06.2019 u/s 271(1)(c) along with demand notice u/s 156.
Rs. 10,632/-
2017-18
Penalty Order dated 24.06.2019 u/s 271(1)(c) along with demand notice u/s 156.
Rs. 5,000/-
The Ld. Counsel for the Income Tax submits that in order to recover the taxes on the undisclosed income of the respondent company and to charge and recover, the Revenue for the transactions from the respondent company during the assessment year 2012-13 to 2017-18, it necessitates restoration of the Respondent Company in the Register of Companies to proceed further in accordance with law, since as on date the proceedings cannot continue against the company, because of it being struck off from the register of companies.
The Appellant has filed its affidavit of service on 14.05.2019, where it has been stated that the copy of appeal was sent to Respondent No. 2 on 22.12.2018, however the same has returned unserved. Thereafter, service was effected on Respondent no. 2 through an email dated 14.03.2019. Copy of tracking report along with email are annexed alongwith the affidavit. A copy of the appeal was sent to Respondent No. 3 on 22.12.2018 and the same retuned unserved with remarks "Unclaimed". Thereafter, service was effected on Respondent no. 2 through Dasti / Affixation. Upon visiting the registered address of Respondent No. 3, Mr. Amarjit Singh a fellow colleague of Respondent no. 3, accepted the notice and informed that Respondent No. 3 had quit the company. Copy of tracking report and acknowledgement of notice are annexed alongwith the affidavit. A copy of the appeal was sent to Respondent No. 4 on 22.12.2018 and the same as delivered. Further notice was effected on Respondent no. 4 through speed post on 14.03.2019. Copy of tracking report are annexed alongwith the affidavit.
It is submitted by the Appellant that respondent No. 3 could not be served by ordinary mode of service, therefore, service has been effected by publication in English newspaper "Business Standard", Delhi edition dated 25.04.2019 and the name of the Respondent Company and its Directors was appearing at Serial No. 14 on Page No. 10. The publication was also done in Hindi newspaper "Jansatta", Delhi edition 25.04.2019 and the name of the Respondent Company and its Directors was appearing at Serial No. 14 on Page No. 3. Copy of newspapers has been annexed along with the affidavit.
The Income Tax Department is an aggrieved party within the meaning of section 252(1) as it has to recover taxes payable by respondent company and great prejudice will be caused to the Appellant, if the name of the respondent company is not restored back. In the 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 respondents 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 never been struck off in accordance with Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Let the copy of order be supplied to parties.