Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Registrar Of Companies, Delhi & Haryana

Sumita Pureayastha, (Member Technical)

 This Appeal has been filed by Income tax Office, Ward 22(3), New Delhi invoking the provisions of Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013

for restoration of the name of the Respondents -Company M/s. Sanguine Tours and Travels Private Limited in the register maintained by the

Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana..

 As per the averments, M/s. Sanguine Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd., is a private limited company registered with Registrar of Companies, NCT of

Delhi & Haryana on 12.01.1999 having its Registered office at m/s. Sanguine Tours And Travels Pvt Ltd., UG-25, Somdutt Chamber-II, 9, Bhikaji

Cama Place, New Delhi 110 006 having CIN No.U63040DL1999PTC097902. The Authorized share capital of the Company is Rs. 1,00,000/- and

paid up share capital of the Company is Rs. 1,00,000/- as shown on MCA website of Company’s Master Data.

 That directors of the Respondent No.2- company, being Ms. Kanta Mohotra and Ms. Rajni Tripathy have been arrayed as Respondent No.3,

Respondent no.4 respectively.

 Information has been obtained through NMS/ ITD Software from AIR/ CIB/ 26AS /Individual Transaction statement from where it is observed

that the respondent-company has received commission/ brokerage income amounting to Rs.6,21,498/- on which TDS has been deducted U/Sec.l94H

for A.Y. 2012-13. IT is seen from e-filing of Income-tax Department that respondent- company has not filed its ITR for A.Y. 2012-13. As per

provisions of Sec. 139 of the Income-tax Act, every Company is mandatorily required to file its return of Income within the prescribed time in the

prescribed manner. Thus the respondent-company has violated provisions of the Income-tax Act which renders the respondent- company liable to

action as per Income-tax Act.

As the respondent-company did not file its ITR and did not disclose fully all material particulars, the Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that

undisclosed income of Rs.6,21,498/- has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2012-13 thereby tendering the company liable for consequences under Income-

tax Act, 1961 and entitling Revenue to initiate proceedings against the respondent- company. A Notice dated 29.03.2019 U/Sec.148 of the Income-tax

Act for the A.Y.2012-13 was issued. The case of respondent- company has been re-opened U/Sec. 147 of the Income-tax Act.

 As per Sec. 153(2) of the Income-tax Act, the Assessment Order has been passed, within the statutory limit U/Sec.147/ 143(3) of the Income-

tax Act which resulted into creation of demand of Rs.Nil upon the respondent-company. As respondent-company failed to furnish its return of income

as required u/Sec. 139(1) of the Income-tax Act for A.Y. 2012-13, therefore, penalty notice dated 10.10.2019 U/Sec.274 r/w Sec.27IF has been

issued for levying a penalty of Rs.5,000/- upon the respondent â€" company.

 There are outstanding tax dues against the respondent- company much prior to date of striking off the name from RoC and Revenue Department

has to take coercive steps against the company mid. its Directors including criminal proceedings and. hence requires to the Company’s name to be

restored back.

 The respondent-company is trying to escape the assessment proceedings and the liability that may arise out of the said proceedings.

 On perusal of the MCA website, the appellant came to know that respondent- company’s name was struck off by ROC initially by issuing

Notice No.ROC-DEL/248/STK-5/2336 dated 13.06.2017 followed by Notification No.ROC/DELHI/248(5)/STK-7/5071 dated 01.09.2017, striking off

the name of Company at Sr.No. 18971 from the Register of Registrar of Companies.

 It is submitted, by the appellant that the name of the respondent company had been struck off by the ROC without enquiry and the same was not

intimated to the Appellant, Assessing Officer, Income-tax or the concerned- Income Tax Department. The same could not be allowed to be invoked

resulting in escapement of tax liability or any other liability on the company which seeks to get its name removed, from the register of the Ld ROC.

 The appellant submitted that the Income Tax department being aggrieved under the Section 252 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 for framing Assessment Order for recovering the taxes due and for any further consequential proceedings against the respondent-company.

 It is further submitted, that since the respondent company has become non-existent entity, the respondent company and its directors are trying to

escape the assessment proceedings and the liability that will arise out of the said, proceedings.

 The respondent-company failed to appear before the Court to provide its defence. Hence, the Order was reserved on 06.08.2021.

 To render assessment order valid in the eyes of Law and to enable the Appellant to take steps for recovery of taxes and for any further

consequential proceedings, the respond.ent- company’s name be restored to the Register of Companies as if the name of the company was never

struck off.

 Denial to restore the name of the respondent company in the Register of the ROC will not only condone the wrong doing of the respondent

company but it will also encourage of escapement of tax liabilities by such subterfuge which will be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in the long

run. The service of notice to respondents has been made through publication in newspaper, but none armepired .

 Upon perusal of the documents and submissions made, this appeal is allowed. The Registrar of companies is 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 accordingly.

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