Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

This appeal is filed by Income Tax Department through Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 24(1), New Delhi, having office at 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 Soss Earth Developers Limited, having its registered office at J- 21C, Pocket- J, Sheikh Sarai, Phase- II, New Delhi,

South Delhi- 110025, bearing CIN U45200 DL2010 PLC209997. Mr. Raman Kumar, Mr. Rakesh Kumar and Mr. Nikhilananda are Respondents No.

3, 4 and 5 who are Directors of the Company.

That the information has been obtained from ITD System that the Respondent-Company had made cash deposits of Rs. 1,56,000/- during the F.Y.

2011-12, relevant to A.Y. 2012-13. As per the Respondent did not file its ITR and did not disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for

assessment, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that an estimated amount of Rs. 1,56,000/- had escaped assessment which the meaning of

Section 147 of the IT Act, which has not been brought under tax for the A.Y. 2012-13.

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. 1,56,000/-. 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 27.03.2019 was issued. The said

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

The Assessment Orders were passed dated 28.11.2019 and further penalty orders were also passed against respondent no. 2 company, for the

A.Y. 2012-13.

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. 18995)

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. The respondents no. 2 to 5 were served through publication in one English

and one vernacular newspaper vide publication dated 23.10.2019. None appeared for Respondents No. 2 to 5, hence they have been proceeded ex

parte vide order dated 06.11.2019.

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.