Income Tax Officer vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

Hemant Kumar Sarangi, Member (T)

This appeal is filed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(3), New Delhi, having office at Room No. 225D, C.R. Building, LP. Estate, New Delhi -

110002 (for brevity the 'appellant'), under Section 252(1) r/w Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 (for brevity the Act') read with Rule 7 & 9

of Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016 by Registrar of Companies, the respondent herein.

The respondent No.2, M/s. Morpheus Travel and Language Private Limited is a company incorporated on 29.05.2003 under the provision of

Companies Act 1956, as a Private Limited Company with the ROC-Delhi, having its registered office at 101, Jyoti Shikhar District Center, Janakpuri,

New Delhi -110058, bearing CINU63040DL2003PTC120612. The Authorized share capital of the Company is Rs.1,00,000/- and paid up share capital

of the Company is Rs.1,00,000/-.

The directors of the company, being Mr. Hemchandra Jha and Ms. Minakshi Jha, have been arrayed as Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 4

respectively.

It is submitted by the appellants that ITD System reflects that a payment of Rs.6,71,272/- had been received by the respondent company, as

payment as per TDS under Section 194J of the Income Tax Act reflected in the 26 AS system. Further, the respondent company had not filed its

return of income for AY 2012-13 and the reasons for issue of Notice u/s 148 of escapement of

The Principal commissioner of Income Tax -6 after noting the observations of the Ld. Assessing officer gave its approval for reopening the case of

the Assessee as there is escapement of income from assessment. Thereafter, notice under Section 148 of the IT Act dated 25.03.2019 was issued.

The said notice was never replied to by the directors nor by any other representative of the company.

On perusal of the MCA website, the appellant has come to know that the the name of the respondent 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 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 Assessing Officer 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.

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.

10.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 for income against the credit for amount of Rs. 6,71,272/-. Denial o 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 have appeared.

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 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.