Income Tax Officer vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

This Appeal has been filed by Income tax Officer, Ward 25(1), 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. Tabasko Hospitality Private Limited in the register maintained by the Registrar of

Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana.

As per the averments, M/s. Tabasko Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., is a private limited company registered with Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi &

Haryana on 28.11.2002 having its Registered office at Punjabi Bhawan, 4th Floor, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi 110002 having CIN

No.U55101DL2002PTC117820. The Authorized share capital of the Company is Rs.80,00,000/- and paid up share capital of the Company is

71,86,750/ -.

That directors of the Respondent No.2- company, being Mr. Ajay Kumar Marwah, Mr.Rarnan Sharma, Mrs. Sucharita Sharma have been arrayed

as Respondent No. 3, Respondent no. 4 and respondent no.5 respectively.

From the information available with the Revenue through NMS/ ITD software information from AIR/CIB statements and Individual Transaction

Statements (ITS), 26A5, income-tax data and ITBA- AIMS statement, it is observed that during the F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to A.Y. 2012-13, the

respondent-company has received interest other than interest on securities, contractual receipts, income from house property and Fee for Professional

/Technical services all amounting to Rs.66,73,440/- from different parties on which TDS had been deducted u/sec.194A, 194C, 1941 and 194 J of the

Income-tax Act. Further, the respondent -company had made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.81,34,540/- in its Bank Account during F.Y. 2011-12

relevant to A.Y. 2012-13. The respondent-company did not filed its Income-tax Return for A.Y. 2012-13 inspite of having received the aforesaid

income and having made huge cash deposits as mentioned above.

As the RespondentOcompany did not fully disclose all material facts necessary for assessment, the Appellant has reason to believe that atleast an

amount of Rs.1,48,07,980/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of Sec.147/ 148 of the Income-tax Act and has not been brought under tax for

the A.Y. 2012-13 . Therefore, the appellant issued Notice dated 27.03.2019 u/sec.148 for initiating assessment proceedings in the company's case to

assess the income not disclosed by the company.

After following due process, the Appellant issued Assessment Order dt.25.11.2019 under sec. 144 r/w Sec.147 of the Income Tax Act for the A.Y.

2012-13 resulting in raising of tax demand of Rs.1,08,26,800/- against the respondent -company and Demand Notice was also issued.

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

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-7/2879 dated 30.06.2017 at Sr.No.20019 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 seeks 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.

The respondent-company failed to appear before the Court to provide its defence. Hence, the Order was reserved on 08.02.2021.

To render assessment order valid 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 be 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.

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 allowed and disposed of accordingly.

Let the copy of the order be served to the parties.