Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

Sumita Purkayastha, (Member Technical)

This Appeal has been filed by Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax , Circle 13(2), New Delhi invoking the provisions of Section 252(1) read with

Sec.252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 for restoration of the name of the Respondents Company M/s. JIVS Cashcow Films Pvt Ltd., 271, Jamia

Nagar, Okhla , New Delhi 110 025 in the register maintained by the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana.

As per the averments, M/s. JIVS Cashcow Films Private Limited, New Delhi was incorporated on 18.10.2010 as a private limited company and has

its registered office at 271, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi 110 025 having CIN No. U92120DL2010PTC209484. The business of the appellant

company is to carry on sale / purchase of bullion. 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/-.

The directors of the company, being Ms. Jotica Sehgal and Mr. Iram Mirza have been arrayed as Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 4

respectively.

It is submitted by the appellants that from the information available with the Revenue through NMS/ITD software information from AIR/CIB

statements and individual Transaction Statements (ITS) and 26AS, it is observed that during the FY 2011-12 relevant to AN. 2012-13, the respondent

-company had received a payment of Rs.28,57,874/- towards fee for professional or Technical services (ii) contractual receipts amounting to Rs.

16,77,602/- (iii) interest other than interest on securities amounting to Rs.75,336/- and (iv) made remittance of Rs.2,70,000/- to a non-resident or to a

foreign company and the respondent company did not file its Income-tax Return for AY 2012-13 and for said reasons escaped assessment within the

meaning of Sec. 147/148 of Income-tax Act. Therefore, the appellant issued notice dated 28.03.2019 u/sec.148 of the Income-tax Act for the A.Y.

2012-13 for initiating assessment proceedings against the respondent/ company.

The Principal commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi after noting the observations of the Addl. Commissioner , IT ,Range 13 gave its approval

for reopening the case of the Assessee as there is escapement of income from assessment. Thereafter, notice under Section 148 of the IT Act dated

28.03.2019 was issued. The said notice was never replied to by the directors nor by any other representative of the company.

On perusal of the MCA website, the appellant has come to know that the name of the respondent company was struck off vide Notification dated

30.06.2017 at Sr. No.9670, 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 by the ROC.

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 Commissioner of Income Tax. 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 removal of the name

of the Respondent-Company from the Register maintained by the Registrar of the companies, for reopening of assessment proceedings, the company

has to be in existence.

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 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 receiving Rs.28,57,874/- towards fee for professional or Technical services (ii) contractual receipts amounting to Rs.

16,77,602/- (iii) interest other than interest on securities amounting to Rs.75,336/- and (iv) made remittance of Rs.2,70,000/- to a non-resident or to a

foreign company and the respondent company also did not file its Incometax Return for AY 2012-13.

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 have appeared.

Upon hearing the appeal, the order was reserved on 02.12.2020. 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 disposed of accordingly.

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