AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sumita Purkayastha, (Member Technical)
This Appeal has been filed by Income tax Office, Ward 18(1), 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. Navjeevan Industries Limited in the register maintained by the Registrar of Companies,
NCT of Delhi & Haryana.
 As per the averments, M/s. Navjeevan Industries Ltd., is a private limited company registered with Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi &
Haryana on 15.06.2001 having its Registered office at 144-B/5, First Floor, Katra Mashroo, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi 110006 having CIN
No.U17111DL2001PTC111288. The Authorized share capital of the Company is Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and paid up share capital of the Company is Rs.
11,36,000/- as shown on MCA website of Company’s Master Data.
 That Directors of the Respondent No.2- company, being Mr. Diwan Singh and Mr. Naveen Jain 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 not filed its Income- tax Return for the 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 before the due date in prescribed form, duly verified. The respondent-company violated
the provisions of Income-tax Act.
Information was received from Income-tax Officer (Inv.) ,Unit-4 ,New Delhi vide communication dated 27.03.2019 informing that during F.Y. 2011-
12 related to A.Y. 2012-13, the respondent-company has taken accommodation entry of Rs.8,00,000/- from M/s. Surya Sales Corporation who
maintained a Bank Account with Dhanlaxmi Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi.
As respondent- company did not file its Income-tax Return for A.Y. 2012-13, the Appellant has reason to believe that an amount of atleast
Rs.8,00,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of Sec. 147 of the Income-tax Act and remained un-taxed during A.Y. 2012-13 thereby
rendering the respondent-company liable for consequences under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and entitling the Revenue to initiate proceedings against
the company. Therefore, Appellant issued Notice dated 29.03.2019 U/Sec.148 of the Income- tax Act for A.Y. 2012-13 to the respondent-company.
The case of respondent-company has been re-opened U/ Sec. 147 of the Income- tax Act for framing the assessment order, for recovering the taxes
due and for any further consequential proceedings against the company under Income-tax Act. The said proceedings for re¬assessment of income
of the respondent company for A.Y. 2012-13 are pending.
The Assessing Officer recorded the reasons for initiation of proceedings U/Sec.147 r/w Sec. 148 of the Income-tax Tax Act, 1961 on 28.03.2019 and
Pr. Commissioner, Income-Tax -06, Delhi accorded approval on 29.03.2019. A notice dated 29.03.2019 U/Sec. 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was
issued on 29.03.2019 and Penalty Notice U/Sec.271(1) (c ) dated 30.11.2019 has been issued against the respondent-company. The respondent-
company did not reply to the Notices issued by the Appellant.
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 and 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 under Sec. 560(5)
of the Companies Act, 1956 vide Gazette Notification dated 04.06.2018.
 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 12.08.2021.
 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 respondent- 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 appeared.
 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.