Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2) vs Registrar Of Companies & Others

Hemant Kumar Sarangi, Member (T)

The appeal is filed by Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2) New Delhi, against the striking off of the name of the M/s Aarohan Construction 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 07.07.2010 having CIN No.

U45204 DL2010 PTC205429 with authorized capital Rs. 1,00,000/- and paid up capital of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The registered office of the company is

stated to be at 379, Vipin Garden, Main Najafgarh Road, Behind Punjab National Bank, New Delhi. Therefore, the jurisdiction lies with this Bench of

the Tribunal.

The Appellant states that, as per the Information received from Investigation Wing, Income Tax Department, Faridabad, on 01.10.2011 there was

RTGS transfer of Rs. 30 lakhs made by the Respondent Company in favour of M/s Altima Netech Pvt. Ltd. which is engaged in the business of Web

Soloutions, followed by frequent cash withdrawals by M/s Altima Netech Pvt. Ltd. The analysis of the return of income of the Respondent Company

shows sale of Rs. 4,30,000/-, purchases Nil, Opening Stock Nil, Closing Stock Nil, Loans and Advances Rs. 8,600/- Bank balance Rs. 5,478/- and

cash in hand of Rs. 99,853/-. The above particulars do not give full and true disclosure of the above transaction of Rs. 30,00,000/-. Therefore, the

Appellant has reason to believe that an amount of at least Rs. 30,00,000/- has escaped assessment in the case of the Respondent Company for the A.

Y. 2011-12 within the meaning of Section 147/148 of the I. T. Act, thereby rendering the company liable for consequences under Income Tax Act,

1961.

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 14.06.2019. Affidavit of service has been filed.

It is further stated by the applicant, that the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961, dated 31.03.2018 for A.Y. 2011-12 was issued to

M/s Aarohan Construction Private Limited and that assessment / reassessment proceedings so initiated were getting barred by limitation on

31.12.2018.

Appellant has submitted that vide notice dated 27.04.2017 no. ROC-DEL/248/STK-5/721 in Form â€" 5, the Registrar of Companies (ROC) had

sought explanation from the company as to why its name should not be struck off from the register of companies, on account of not carrying on any

business or operation for a period of two immediately preceding financial years and having not made any application within such period for obtaining

the status of a dormant company under section 455 of the Companies Act, 2013 (Act).

The appellant has further submitted that, it is not known whether M/s Aarohan Construction Private Limited, made any representation to the ROC

in pursuance of the STK-5, but 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 30.06.2017 being Public Notice no. ROC-

DEL/248(5)/STK-7/2879 in Form STK-7 (Company’s name appearing at Sl. No. 260). 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. 30,00,000/- in the Taxable Income of Company.

The Appellant further submitted that Assessment Order dated 05.12.2018 has since been passed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 which has resulted in creation of demand of Rs. 26,19,680/-. Copy of the assessment order along with demand notice passed

under section 156 has been annexed with the appeal, which is required to be paid within 30 days, failing which consequences will follow in accordance

with provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. As 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 along with demand notice dated 17.01.2019, under Section

271(1)(b) & Section 156 respectively for an amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Notice dated 05.12.2018 and 02.04.2019 under section 274 read with Section

271(1)(c) and Penalty order dated 17.01.2019 under Section 271F for an amount of Rs. 5,000/-were issued. Copy of said orders along with notice

have been annexed along with the appeal.

The Appellant has filed its affidavit of service on 25.03.2019, it has been stated that the publication was done in English newspaper “Hindustan

Timesâ€, Delhi edition dated 17.03.2019. The publication was also done in Hindi newspaper “Navbharat Timesâ€, Delhi edition 17.03.2019. Copy

of newspaper has been annexed alongwith the affidavit.

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 assessment 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, 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 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 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 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 order be supplied to parties.