Income Tax Officer vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

This appeal is filed by Income Tax Authority, through its Income Tax Officer, Mr. Ramkesh Meena, under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act,

2013 (for brevity ‘the Act’) against the order of striking off the name of the company M/s Ratroi Maa Trading Private Limited (for brevity

‘the Company’) passed by the respondent under section 248 (1) of the Act read with Rule 7 of Companies (Removal of Names of Companies

from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016 published on 30.06.2017 vide notification no. ROC-DEL/248(5)/STK-7/2879 by Registrar of Companies,

the respondent herein.

The company is incorporated as a Private Limited Company under the provision of Companies Act, 1956 with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of

Delhi and Haryana on 12.05.2008 having CIN No. U51900DL2008PTC177982.

The company is having registered office at M- 98, Second Floor, Near Jagat Ram Park, Laxmi Nagar, East Delhi, Delhi-110092.

Authorized share capital of the Company is Rs.1,00,000/-and issued, subscribed and paid up share capital of the Company is Rs. 1,00,000/-

As per the notice of non- compliance of provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 in respect to filing of annual returns and financial statements for the

A.Y. 2010- 2011, the name of the 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.

The Appellant has submitted that service was duly affected on the respondents. Respondent No. 1 has not filed any reply but the Ld. Company

Prosecutor for ROC makes an oral submission that the department has no objection to the revival of the company which is initiated by the Revenue

department. Respondent No. 2,3 and 4 submits that they have filed an appeal before commissioner of Income Tax against the arbitrary order of the

Assessing officer pending for adjudication.

The Appellant prays for the restoration of company namely M/s Ratroi Maa Trading Pvt. Ltd. in order to take forward proceedings initiated against

the company. As per averments, Income Tax department received information from the office of the DDIT (Investigation), Unit 1(2) that during the

financial year 2009-2010 relevant to assessment year 2010-2011, the respondents company has a credit entry of Rs.9,12,24,405/- in its Account no.

003705015783 maintained with ICICI Bank, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. Further information received that Arries Trade Agency was mainly

depositing cash at various branches followed by transfer to accounts of various individual and businesses within the bank and in other banks. On

enquiries it was found that none of the concerns at the addresses mentioned in the Report were functioning from their given addresses. On receipt of

the information, return of income was downloaded and examined and it was found that inspite of huge credit entries in its bank account, the assessee

company has shown meager income and the source of huge credits in its bank account remained unverified. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had

reasons to believe that the assessee company has escaped assessment of income of Rs. 9,12,24,405/- for A.Y. 2010-11.

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 and action in accordance with law is required to be initiated against the company. Notice dated 29.03.2017 under section

148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the respondent at its registered address and email id as well as through affixation.

The appellant has further submitted that Reasons for issue of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were served on the respondent

no.1 at its registered address and also Form for recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings under section 148 and for obtaining the approval of

the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax dated 24.03.2017 is annexed with the appeal.

The appellant has further submitted notice dated 04.09.2017 under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued and served to the

Respondent No. 1 at its registered address and email id as well as through affixation. The representative of the respondent company attended the

proceedings on various dates.

Despite sufficient time given, the respondent company had failed to produce the books of accounts for verification. Therefore, the income of the

assessee was determined on the estimation basis and assessment order dated 15.12.2017 was passed under section 147/143(3) of IT Act, 1961 stating

that the entire amount of Rs. 9,45,42,451/- was received by the assesssee in the account mentioned above, treated as its gross receipt for relevant

assessment year 2010-11 which resulted in net profit before tax of Rs. 75,91,758/-. Further penalty proceedings are also initiated by issue of notices

under section 271(1)(c) and 271A of IT Act, 1961.

The Ld. Counsel for the Income Tax submits that in order to recover the taxes on the undisclosed income of the respondent company and to

charge and recover the revenue from the transactions from the respondent company during the year 2010-11, it necessitates restoration of the

Respondent Company in the Register of Companies to proceed further in accordance with law, since as on date the proceedings cannot continue

against the company, for it being struck off.

The income tax department is an aggrieved party within the meaning of section 252(1) as it has to recover taxes payables by respondent company

and great prejudice will be caused to revenue if the name of the respondent company is not restored back. 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 respondents in accordance with the statutory provisions. The name of the Appellant 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.