Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2) vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors

Hemant Kumar Sarangi, Member (T)

The appeal is filed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2) New Delhi, against the striking off of the name of the M/s Aapki Marketing Private

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

It is stated that the company is a private limited company incorporated under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956, on 29.03.2005 having CIN No.

U51909 DL2005 PTC134501. Authorized capital is Rs. 11,00,000/- and paid up capital is Rs. 11,05,000/-. The registered office of the company is

stated to be at 3522/3, Narang Colony, Trinagar, New Delhi - 110035. Therefore, the jurisdiction lies with this Bench of the Tribunal.

The appellant submits, that M/s Aapki Marketing Private Limited had filed its Income Tax Return for the A. Y. 2014-15 on 28.09.2014 declaring

‘NIL’ income. As identified by the Non-Filer Monitoring System (NMS), Module of Database maintained by Income Tax Department, the

company had filed its Income Tax Return and did not disclose fully and truly all material particulars of Income Tax dues to the tune of Rs. 49,91,580/-

in respect of the Financial Year 2013-2014 relevant for the A.Y. 2014-15. The Income Tax Return of the Respondent Company for the A. Y. 2014-

15 was picked up by Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for Scrutiny assessment proceeding and Notice dated 18.09.2015 under section

143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued.

The Appellant further submitted that Assessment Order dated 23.12.2016 has since been passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

which has resulted in creation of demand of Rs. 49,91,580/- which was required to be paid within 30 days, failing which consequences are to follow in

accordance with provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. Demand notice dated 23.12.2016 under Section 156 of the I.T. Act, has also been raised on the

Respondent Company, Copy of the assessment order along with Demand Notice has been annexed with the appeal. Separate penalty notices under

Section 271(1)(b) and under Section 271(1)(c) dated 23.12.2016 & 08.05.2017 were issued. Copy of the notices has been annexed with the appeal.

The appellant has stated that the Penalty Orders dated 30.05.2017 under Section 271(1)(c) for an amount of Rs. 37,53,059/- and Penalty Orders

dated 30.05.2017 under Section 271(1)(b) imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-respectively, alongwith Demand Notice dated 30.05.2017 under Section

156 of the I.T. Act, have also been issued in connection with all the Penalty orders. Copies of penalty orders along with demand notices have been

annexed with the appeal.

The appellant has filed affidavit of service. 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 29.11.2019.

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 of the respondent company during the assessment year 2014-15, 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, because of it being struck off from the register of companies.

The income tax department is an aggrieved party within the meaning of section 252(1) as it has to recover taxes payable by respondent company

and great prejudice will be caused to 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 respondents 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.