Income Tax Officer vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

This appeal is filed by Income Tax Authority, through its Income Tax Officer, Mr. Surendra Kumar Sharma, under Section 252(1) of the

Companies Act, 2013 (for brevity ‘the Act’) against the order of striking off the name of the company M/s Starsun Villas 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 08.08.2018 vide notification no. ROC-DEL/248(5)/STK-7/4865 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 22.05.2007 having CIN No. U45400DL2007PTC163782.

The company is having its registered office at Railway Quarter No. SC-4A, Basant lane, Near Karnail Singh Railway Statium, New Delhi-110005.

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, 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. Other than the Registrar of companies, none appeared on behalf of

the other respondents. While Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 4 were proceeded ex-parte, and 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. Registrar of companies further submits that they have no objections to the prayer of the applicant being granted by this

bench.

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

company. As per averments, on the basis of the information from the ITD System through the “Non- Filer Management System†there had been

huge deposits/ credits of Rs. 2,11,75,721/- in HDFC Bank account no. 03802020000476 during the A.Y. 2011-12. On examination it was found that

the assessee company has not filed its return of income (ITR) for the A.Y. 2011-12. Therefore, the source of cash deposited remain unverifiable.

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 31.03.2018 under section

148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the respondent at its registered address and on the email id of the company 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 of recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings under section 148 alongwith the approval of the Pr.

Commissioner of Income Tax dated 30.03.2018 is annexed with the appeal.

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 A.Y. 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) 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.