AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sumita Purkayastha, (Member Technical)
 This Appeal has been filed by Income tax Office, Ward 22(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. VS Tube Tech Private Limited in the register maintained by the Registrar of
Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana.
 As per the averments, M/s. VS Tube Tech Pvt. Ltd., is a private limited company registered with Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi &
Haryana on 11.04.1990 having its Registered office at D-875, New Friends Colony, New Delhi 110065 having CIN No.U27320DL1990PTC039834.
The Authorized share capital of the Company is Rs.40,00,000/- and paid up share capital of the Company is Zero as shown on MCA website of
Company’s Master Data.
 That directors of the Respondent No.2- company, being Mr. Rocky Jain and Mr. Neeraj Jain have been arrayed as Respondent No.3,
Respondent no.4 respectively.
 The Appellant passed an Assessment Order u/sec. 144 of the Income-tax Act, in respect of the respondent-company for A.Y. 2005-2006 on
26.11.2007 vide which a Tax Demand of Rs.27,46,649/- was raised on respondent-company vide Demand Notice dated 26.11.2007 U/Sec. 156 of the
Income-tax Act. As the respondent-company violated provisions of Income-tax Act, a penalty order dated 27.05.2018 U/Sec.27l(l)(c ) was passed
against the respondent- company imposing a penalty of Rs.55,23,000/- and necessary Demand Notice dated 27.05.20108 U/Sec. 156 of the Income-
tax Act was sent to the respondent company. The case of respondent-company was re-opened U/Sec. 147 of the Income-tax Act and after following
the due process, the Appellant passed an Assessment Order u/Sec. 147/144 of the Income-tax Act for A.Y. 2005-2006 on 19.03.2013 vide which an
additional tax demand of Rs.2,29,97,670/- was raised and Demand Notice dated 19.03.2013 sent to the respondent-company.
 As the respondent-company violated provisions of the Income- tax Act by concealing income and by furnishing inaccurate particulars of its
income in the Return of Income, a penalty Order dated 26.09.2013 U/Sec. 271(l)(c) imposing penalty of Rs.l,02,76,224/-was passed and Demand
Notice dated 26.09.2013 U/Sec. 156 of the Income-tax Act sent to the respondent-company.
 There is an outstanding tax dues of the tune of Rs.4,15,43,543/- for A.Y. 2005-2006 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 initially by issuing
Notice No.ROC-DEL/248/STK-5/2018/2912 dated 18.06.2018 followed by Notification No.ROC/DELHI/248(5)/STK- 7/4865 dated 08.08.2018,
striking off the name of Company at Sr.No.23547 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 tiying 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 03.08.2021.
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.