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

3

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 P S Info Services Private Limited, having its registered office at 29/147, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi- 110008,

bearing CIN U72200 DL2005 PTC134724, Ms. Asha Arora and Mr. Nilofer Qadri are Respondents No. 3 and 4 who are Directors of the Company.

That the information available with the Revenue through NMS/ITD Software, information from AIR/CIB Statements and Individual Transaction

Statements (ITS) and 26AS, it is observed that the Respondent Company has received payments of rent amounting to Rs. 5,15,933/- from different

entries on which TDS of Rs. 51,593/- was deducted under Section 194I of the IT Act. As per the IT system, the respondent did not file its ITR for

A.Y. 2011-12, and did not disclose material facts necessary for assessment. The appellant believed that estimated amount of Rs. 5,15,933/- has

escaped the assessment.

The appellant has further submitted that it appears that there is tax evasion which has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 &

148 of the Income Tax Act for income against the credit for amount of Rs. 5,15,933/-. 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.

After approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 6, notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, dated 22.11.2018 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 04.09.2019 and further penalty order was also passed against respondent no. 2 company, for the

Financial Year 2012-13 .

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. 9286)

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 has been filed. The respondents no. 2 to 4 were served through publication in one

English and one vernacular newspaper vide publication dated 30.01.2020.

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.