Income Tax Officer vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

This Appeal has been filed by Income tax Officer, Ward 17(3), New Delhi invoking the provisions of Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013

for restoration of the name of the Respondents Company M/s. Grahneez Paradise Pvt. Ltd., in the register maintained by the Registrar of Companies,

NCT of Delhi & Haryana.

2 As per the averments, M/s. Grahneez Paradise Pvt. Ltd., was incorporated on 25.07.2008 as a private limited company and has its registered office

at F-11, Ground Floor, Vishwarkarma Colony, MB Road, South Delhi, New Delhi-110044 having CIN No.U51109DL2008PTC181366. The

Authorized share capital of the Company is Rs.10,00,000/-.

That directors of the Respondent No.2- company, being Mr. Rajan Singh and Ms. Archana Singh have been arrayed as Respondent No. 3 and

Respondent no.4 respectively.

It is submitted by the appellants that the case of the respondent-company was proposed by the Assessing Officer in the concerned PA

Commissioner of Income Tax for reopening the assessment proceedings u/sec.147 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer noted that the

respondent-company has escaped assessment for the income amounting to Rs.1,70,00,000/-. Notice dated 28.3.2018 u/sec.148 of the Income Tax Act

was issued to the respondent-company. The respondent-company has not filed Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2011-12. In the present

case information was received through the NMS that during FY 2010-11 relevant to A.Y. 2011-12 the respondent-company has made cash

transactions exceeding Rs.10,00,000/- 17 times during the F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to Ay 2011-12. The said information suggests that the respondent

company was having taxable income of Rs.1,70,00,000/- as the respondent-company had undertaken cash transactions during the year FY 2010-11.

As per Income-tax Act, 1961, every, company has to mandatorily file its return of income within the prescribed time as stipulated U/s.139 of the Act.

The respondent company has not filed its return of income for the A.Y.2011-12 hence no assessment could be made so as to arrive at correct taxable

income of the respondent company. Since no assessment has been made U/S.143(3), the Assessing Officer could not scrutinize the transactions

entered into by the respondent-company during the year.

The respondent-company is trying to escape the assessment proceedings and the liability that may arise out of the said proceedings. That the

amount of Rs. 1,70,00,000/- has escaped assessment and is required to be assessed in the hands of the respondent-Company for which the name of

the respondent-company needs to be restored in the register of ROC. Assessment Order dated 24.12.201.8 u/sec.144/147 of the Income-tax Act,1961

was issued to the respondent-company along with Notices dated 24.12.2018 for initiating penalty proceedings u/sec.271(1)( c), Sec.271(f) and Section

271(1(b) of the Income-tax Act,1961 for A.Y. 2011-12.

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

No.ROC/DELHI/248(5)/STK-7/4865 dated 08.08.20.18 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 socks 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 the removal of the

name of the company from the register by the registrar of the company as for the reopening of assessment proceedings the company has to be in

existence for framing Assessment Order for recovering the taxes due and for any further consequential proceedings against the respondent-company.

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.

To render assessment ordervalid in the eyes of Law and to enable the Appellant to take steps for recovery of taxes and for any further

consequential proceedings, the respondent- company's name by restored to the Register of Companies as if the name of the company was never

struck off.

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 appeared.

The respondent-company failed to appear before the Court to provide its defence. Hence, the Order was reserved on 23.12.2020. Upon perusal of

the documents and submissions made, this appeal is allowed. The Registrar of companies is 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.