Income Tax Officer, Ward 12(1) vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

This Appeal has been filed by Income Tax Authority (hereinafter referred as ""Appellant"") invoking the provisions of Section 252 (1) R/w Section

252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 for restoration of the name of the Respondent No. 2 viz/CS Global Visas (India) Pvt. Ltd, in the Register of

Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies (hereinafter referred as ""RoC""), respondent no. 1.

Service was duly affected on the Respondents through all modes and substituted service was also done on the Respondents No. 2- 4 which is held

sufficient, but none appeared.

The Respondent No. 2 was incorporated on 24.03.2008 under the Companies Act, 2013 under the RoC Delhi with Authorized Share Capital of Rs.

100,00,000/- and paid-up Share Capital of Rs. 1,00,000/- respectively. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs initiated proceedings through the office of the

RoC, wherein several names of companies were struck off for want of statutory filings and the Respondent No.2, which had also not filed any

Returns or Financial Statements was struck off from the Register of Companies vide STK- 7 dated 30.06.2017.

The provisions of section 252(1) of the Companies Act 2013, have been invoke by the Appellant to seek restoration of the name of the Respondent

No. 2, in order to carry out proceedings initiated against the company. As per averments, of the Appellant the Respondent No. 2 had deposited an

amount of Rs.41,65,987/- without disclosing its source and has also received undisclosed income of Rs. 1,35,000/- and Rs. 3,27,286/- on which TDS

has been deducted but the Respondent No. 2 failed to file Income Tax Return during the F.Y. 2012-13 and A.Y. 2013-14 without disclosing the

source.

Therefore, the Appellant has reason to believe that undisclosed income as mentioned in para 4 has escaped assessment during A.Y. 2013-14

because the respondent did not disclose fully and truly all material facts to enable assessment, nor has filed its Income Tax Return.

A notice dated 27.03.2018 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961was issued to the Respondent No. 2 for A.Y. 2013-14 to initiate

assessment proceedings in order to assess the income not disclosed by it.

The name of the Respondent No. 2 has been ""Struck Off"" by the RoC vide STK- 7 dated 30.06.2017.

The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the aforesaid facts necessitate restoration of the name of the Respondent No. 2 in the Register of

Companies to proceed further in accordance with law.

In view of the grounds raised by the Appellant, being an aggrieved person, the prayer can be entertained u/s 252(1) read with Section 252(3) of the

Companies Act, 2013.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The RoC is directed to restore the name of the Respondent No.2 in the Register of companies and also

proceed to take such other and further penal action against the respondents in accordance with the statutory provisions.

We, however, make it clear that this Bench has only directed restoration of the name of the Respondent No. 2 in the Register of Companies

maintained by the RoC, on the basis of averments made in the petition and have in no way endorsed or adjudicated about the Appellant's entitlement to

recover any tax etc. which shall be adjudicated by the concerned Department subject to the laws of limitation governing such recoveries. Charges

involved in seeking restoration of the company's name with the office of the ROC shall be borne by the Appellant.

The Petition is disposed of in terms of the above. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant shall obtain a certified copy of this Order to submit before the

concerned ROC for compliance.