Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(1) vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

This appeal is filed by Income Tax Department through Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(1), New Delhi, having office at Room No. 225D, C.R.

Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhiâ€" 110002 (for brevity the ‘appellant’), under Section 252(1) r/w Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013

(for brevity ‘the Act’) read with Rule 7 & 9 of Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016 by

Registrar of Companies, the respondent herein.

The respondent No. 2, M/s J.V.P. Infrastructure Private Limited, having its registered office at GN-5, Shivaji Enclave, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi,

West Delhi- 110027, bearing CIN U70101 DL2010 PTC207600, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Bidhuri and Mr. Jitender Hansraj, are Respondents No. 3 and 4

who are Directors of the Company.

It is submitted by the appellants that ITD System reflects that a payment of Rs. 4,50,000/- had been received in bank accounts and a liability of

more than Rs. 1,00,000/- had been escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 and 148 of the IT Act. It is further submitted that denial to

restore the name of the respondent company in the Register of the ROC, will be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in the long run. Further, the

respondent company had not filed its return of income for A.Y. 2011-12.

After approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 6, notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, dated 29.03.2018 was issued. The said

notice was never replied to, by the Directors nor by any other representative of the company.

The Assessment Order was passed dated 29.11.2018 and further penalty order was also passed against respondent no. 2 company, for the

Financial Year 2011-12 .

On perusal of the MCA website, the appellant has come to know that the the name of the respondent 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 vide notice by the ROC.

The Respondent herein had issued Public notice bearing No. ROC/DELHI/248/STK-5/721 dated 27.04.2017. Consequently, Appellant’s name

was struck off vide notice bearing No. ROC/DELHI/248(5)/STK- 7/2879 dated on 30.06.2017 (Company’s name appearing at Sl. No. 9343)

whereby name of 22864 companies have been struck off w.e.f. 07.06.2017 from the Registrar of Companies.

The respondents were served with appeal and service affidavit is filed. None appeared for respondents no. 2 to 4, hence they have been proceeded

ex parte vide order dated 05.02.2020.

The appellant submitted that the Income Tax Department being aggrieved person and also creditor under Section 252(1) and 252(3) of the

Companies Act, 2013, by the removal of the name of the company from the register by the registrar of the company as for the reopening of

assessment proceedings the company has to be in existence.

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 respondent 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 allowed and disposed of.

Let the copy of the order be served to the parties.