Income Tax Officer vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

This appeal is filed by Income Tax Authority, through its Income Tax Officer, Mr. K. Thomas Babu, under Section 252(1) of the Companies Act,

2013 (for brevity ‘the Act’) against the order of striking off the name of the company M/s Fineteck Fashion India 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 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 31.05.2007 having CIN No. U17121DL2007PTC164219.

The company is having registered office at B- 1702, Ground Floor, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052.

Authorized share capital of the Company is Rs.5,00,000/-and issued, subscribed and paid up share capital of the Company is Rs.1,00,000/-.

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 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 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, Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 4 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 Fineteck Fashion India 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 2011-12, the respondent company had received contractual payments amounting to Rs. 5,10,247/-on which TDS has been

deducted under section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and further the respondent company has not filed its return of income for the assessment

year 2011-12.

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 31.03.2018 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 and also Form for recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings under section 148 is annexed with the appeal.

The Ld. Counsel for the Income Tax submits that assessment order was passed on 28.11.2018 under section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act,

1961.

It is further submitted that Notice of Demand dated 28.11.2018, 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. 25,214/-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 28.11.2018.

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 2011-12, 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) 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.