Income Tax Officer vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

This appeal is filed by Income Tax Authority, through its Income Tax Officer, under Section 252(1) read with 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 Lilac Data System Pvt. Ltd. (for brevity ‘the

Company’) passed by the respondent no.1 Registrar of Companies, 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, 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 06.06.1996 having CIN No. U72300DL1996PTC079441.

The company is having its registered office at D- 1/1188, First Floor, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi- 110070.

Authorized share capital of the Company is Rs.1,00,00,000/- and issued, subscribed and paid up share capital of the Company is Rs. 98,00,200 /-.

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 the

financial years 2009-10 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 prays for the restoration of company namely M/s Lilac Data System Pvt. Ltd. in order to take forward proceedings initiated against

the company. As per averments, on the basis of the Non-Filers Monitoring System information received by the Income Tax department during the

assessment year 2010-2011, the respondent company had entered into various transactions by using/ quoting the PAN of the respondent company

during the Financial Year 2010-11. However, the respondent company has not declared all the receipts by filing its return of Income for Assessment

Year 2010-11. As the respondent company has not filed its correct particulars in return of income while the department has sufficient evidences that

respondent has entered into financial transaction during the A.Y. 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 address as well as through affixation, to which there

is no response, from any of the Respondents.

The appellant has further submitted that Reasons for issue of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were served on the

respondents and also Form for recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings under section 148 is annexed with the appeal.

The Appellant has submitted that service was duly affected on the respondents. Respondent No. 4 had expressed no objection for revival of the

Company and Registrar of companies submits that they have no objections to the prayer of the applicant being granted by this bench.

The Ld. Counsel for the Income Tax submits that assessment order was passed on 20.12.2017 under section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act,

1961.

It is further submitted that Notice of Demand dated 29.06.2018, under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was also served on the

respondents asking them to pay the penalty under section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 2,14,709/-within 30 days of the service of this notice but nothing

is paid till date. The said penalty proceedings are initiated in furtherance of assessment order dated 20.12.2017.

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 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) read with section 252 (3) as it has to recover taxes payable,

if any, by respondent company and 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.