Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1) vs Registrar Of Companies & Others

Dr. Deepti Mukesh, J

The appeal is filed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), New Delhi, against the striking off of the name of the M/s Arca Resource Management

Associates Private Limited (“the companyâ€​), from the register of companies.

It is stated that, the company is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, on 28.03.2007 having CIN No. U93090

DL2007 PTC161211 with Authorized capital Rs. 5,00,000/- and paid up capital of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The registered office of the company is stated to be

at 5/4, Kalkaji Extension, Nehru Enclave, New Delhi â€" 110019. Therefore, the jurisdiction lies with this Tribunal.

The appellant submits that from the information available through NMS / ITD Software, information from AIR/CIB Statements and Individual

Transaction Statements (ITS) and 26AS, it is observed that during the financial year 2011-12 relevant to A. Y. 2012-13, the Respondent Company had

received fees for Professional / Technical services to the tune of Rs. 6,32,337/-.

The Appellant submits, that the case of M/s Arca Resource Management Associates Private Limited was identified by the Non-Filer Monitoring

System (NMS) as the company had not filed its Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2012-13 and did not disclose fully and truly all material

particulars, therefore, the Assessing Officer had reasons to believe that an estimated amount of income of at least Rs. 3,16,168/- (being 50% of fees

for Professional / Technical services of Rs. 6,32,337/-) has not been brought undertax and income of the respondent company has escaped

assessment for A.Y. 2012-13, thereby rendering the company liable for consequences under Income Tax Act, 1961 and entitling the Revenue to

initiate proceedings against the company.

It is submitted by the Appellant, that the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961, dated 25.03.2019 for A.Y. 2012-13, was issued to

M/s Arca Resource Management Associates Private Limited and that assessment / reassessment proceedings so initiated were getting barred by

limitation on 31.12.2019.

Appellant has submitted that vide Public Notice no. ROC-DEL/248/STK-5/2912 was issued on 18.06.2018 in Formâ€" 5 by the Registrar of

Companies (ROC). It was found during the course of the assessment / reassessment proceedings that the name of the company was struck off from

the register of companies as per MCA master data of the company, vide notice dated 08.08.2018 being Public Notice no. ROC-DEL/248(5)/STK-

7/4865 in Form STK-7 (Company’s name appearing at Sl. No. 1842). The legality of the striking off the name of the company from the register of

the companies is sought to be assailed on the ground that the assessment / reassessment proceedings were to result in an addition of Rs. 3,16,168/- in

the Taxable Income of Company.

The Appellant further states that, Assessment Order dated 09.10.2019 has since been passed under section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,

which has resulted in creation of demand of Rs. 95,115/- which was required to be paid within 30 days, failing which consequences were to follow in

accordance with provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. Copy of the assessment order alongwith Demand Notice has been annexed with the appeal.

The Respondent Company failed to furnish its return of income within stipulated time as required under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

for A. Y. 2011-12, therefore penalty orders alongwith demand notice dated 29.08.2018 under section 271(1)(b) for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and

Penalty Notices dated 09.10.2019 under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) and 271F were issued. Copy of penalty orders alongwith demand

notices and show cause notices has been annexed with the appeal.

The Appellant has filed its affidavit of service on 09.12.2019, wherein it states that service through publication was effected on the Respondent

Company and its directors in pursuance of the order of this Tribunal. It is further stated that in spite of, proper service to the respondent nos. 2 to 4,

none appeared. Hence, the case was proceeded ex-parte against the said Respondents vide order dated 07.01.2020.

The Income Tax Department is an aggrieved party within the meaning of section 252(1) and a creditor under Section 252(3) as it has to recover

taxes payable by respondent company and great prejudice will be caused to the Appellant if the name of the respondent company is not restored back.

In the 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 Company 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 never been struck off in accordance with Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Let the copy of order be supplied to parties.