Income Tax Officer vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

Dr. Deepti Mukesh, J

This appeal is filed by Income Tax Authority, through its Income Tax Officer, Mr. Navin Kumar Kurna, under Section 252(1) read with 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 EL Mundo India

Infotech Private Ltd. (for brevity ‘the Company’)

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 04.09.2008 having CIN No. U72300DL2008PTC182872.

The company is having its registered office at House No. 208, Pocket-C, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi-110085.

Authorized share capital of the Company is Rs.5,00,000/-and issued, subscribed and paid up share capital of the Company is NIL.

As per averments, information available with the Revenue through NMS/ ITD Software is that the Respondent Company has received Fee for

Professional / Technical services amounting to Rs. 5,37,475/- on which TDS has been deducted under Section 194C of the I.T. Act, for the

assessment Year 2011-12 and further the respondent company has not filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011-12, thus the company

has violated the provisions of the Income Tax Act by not filing the ITR.

The Appellant has submitted that service was duly affected on the respondents. Other than the Registrar of companies, none appeared on behalf of

the other respondents. While Respondent No. 2, Respondent No.3 and Respondent No. 5 were proceeded ex-parte, and Registrar of companies

submits that they have no objections to the prayer of the applicant being granted by this bench.

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

incorporation, the name of the company was struck off vide STK-7 dated 30.06.2017 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 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 28.03.2018 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, to which there is no

response, from any of the Respondents being the company and its ex-directors.

The Appellant prays for the restoration of company namely M/s El Mundo India Infotech Pvt. Ltd. in order to take forward proceedings initiated

against the company.

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 at its registered address and also Form for recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings under section 148 is annexed with the

appeal.

The Ld. Counsel for the Income Tax submits that assessment order was passed on 13.12.2018 under section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act,

1961.

It is further submitted that Notice of Demand dated 28.03.2018, under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was also served on the

respondents asking them to pay the penalty under section 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), and 271F amounting to Rs. 2,14,990/- within 30 days of the service of

this notice but nothing is paid till date. As a consequence, penalty proceedings are initiated in furtherance of assessment order dated 28.03.2018.

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 assessment year 2011-12, 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) & creditor under Section 252 (3) 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 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.