Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4) vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

This appeal is filed by Income Tax Department, through its Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 1(4) CR. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi, under

Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 (for brevity ‘the Act’) against the order of striking off the name of the Respondent No. 2 company

(for brevity ‘the Company’) passed by the respondent under section 248 (1) of the Act read with Rule 7 of Companies (Removal of Names of

Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016 published on 30.06.2017 vide notification no. ROC-DEL/248(5)/STK-7/2879 by Registrar of

Companies, the respondent herein.

The company is incorporated as a Private Limited Company under the provision of Companies Act, 1956 with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of

Delhi and Haryana on 04.10.2007 having CIN U29248DL2007PTC168930.

The company is having registered office at 18, Kotla Lane, Rouse Aveneue, New Delhi-110002.

Authorized share capital of the Company is Rs.1,00,000/-divided into 10,000 equity shares of Rs.10/- each and issued, subscribed and paid up share

capital of the Company is Rs.1,00,000/- divided into 10,000 equity shares of Rs.10/- each.

As per the notice of non- compliance of provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 in respect to filing of annual returns and financial statements, the

name of the 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.

The appellant has submitted that service was duly effected on the respondents. Other than the Registrar of companies, none appeared on behalf of

the company or ex-directors or other respondents. While Respondent No. 2 to 5 were proceeded ex-parte, Respondent No.1, Registrar of companies

submits that they have no objections to the prayer of the applicant being granted by this bench.

The Appellant prays for the restoration of Respondent No. 2 company in order to take forward proceedings initiated against the company. As per

averments by the appellant, on the basis of the Non-Management System information received by the Income Tax department, the company has

received rent amounting to Rs. 1,09,96,910/- from M/S JSW Severfiled Structured Limited and also remitted Rs. 57,64,571/- to non-residents or

foreign companies. Further, the income tax submitted that this information has not been disclosed by the company as return of income was not filed

through as per Section 139 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, income of the company has escaped assessment to the extent of at least Rs. 1,34,62,408/-

(being 70 % of total receipts towards rent and the amount remitted).

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 and action in accordance with law is required to be initiated against the company. It is submitted that assessment of

income of the Company for the Assessment Year 2012-13 is pending. Notice dated 30.03.2018 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was

issued to the respondent at its registered address and email id as well as through affixation, to which there is no response from the Respondent No. 2

to 5 being the company and its ex-directors.

The Ld. Counsel for the Income Tax submits that in order to recover the taxes on the undisclosed income, of the company and to charge and

recover the revenue from the transactions of the company during the year 2012-13, it necessitates restoration of the Respondent No. 2 Company in

the Register of Companies as maintained by ROC to proceed further in accordance with law. As on date the proceedings cannot continue against the

company, for it being struck off and the said revenue cannot be recovered.

It is the case of appellant that the Income Tax Department is an aggrieved party within the meaning of section 252(1) read with 252(3) of the

Companies Act, 2013 as it has to recover taxes payables by company and great prejudice will be caused to revenue if the name of the company is not

restored back.

In above circumstances, this appeal deserves to be allowed as the appellant is claiming as ‘creditor’ under section 252(3) of the Companies

Act, 2013. Hence this appeal is allowed and the Registrar of companies is directed to restore the name of the 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 Appellant

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 the order be served to the parties.