Income Tax Officer vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

This appeal is filed by Income Tax Authority, through its Income Tax Officer, Mr. Zoheb Hossain, 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 GVC Peripheral 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 19.03.2002 having CIN No. U30007DL2002PTC114624.

The company is having registered office at 209, 1st Floor, Chanakya Complex, B-10, Subash Chowk, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 and as per the

information with IT Department also located at T-2387, Faiz road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

Authorized share capital of the Company is Rs.10,00,000/-and issued, subscribed and paid up share capital of the Company is Rs.4,00,000/-.

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

financial years 2010-11 to 2017-18, 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 and Respondent No. 3 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.

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

company. As per averments, on the basis of the Non-Filer Management System information received by the Income Tax department, the respondent

company had received huge deposits/ credits of Rs.4,12,89,681/- including cash deposits in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Preet Vihar, Delhi during the F.Y.

2009-10 relevant to A.Y. 2010-11 and further the respondent company has not filed its return of income for the assessment year 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 31.03.2017 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, to which there is no

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

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 on 30.03.2017 and Form for recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings under section 148 and for obtaining the

approval of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax for extension of period are annexed with the appeal.

The Ld. Counsel for the Income Tax submits that assessment order was passed on 29.12.2017 under section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act,

1961.

The Ld. Counsel for the Income Tax further 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) and also a 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 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.