Income Tax Officer, Ward 15 (2) vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors

This petition has been filed by Income Tax Authority invoking the provisions of Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 for restoration of the name of the Respondent No. 2 Company, viz Leo Sales Company Pvt. Ltd, in the Register of Companies maintained by the RoC, respondent No. 1.

Service was duly effected on the respondent company and its Directors. Other than the RoC, none appeared on behalf of the other respondents to oppose the prayer made by the petitioner.

Vide Proceedings initiated by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, through the office of the RoC, several names of companies were struck off for want of statutory filings. Respondent No. 2 Company, which had also not filed any Returns or Financial Statements was also struck off from the Register of Companies.

The provisions of section 252 of the Act, have been invoke by the Income Tax Dept. to seek restoration of the name of the company in order to carry out proceedings initiated against the company. As per averments, it is submitted by the Income Tax that the respondent company had deposited Rs. 33.15 crores in Yes bank during FY 2010-11, relevant to AY 2011-12. It was further observed that the ITR filed by company did not explain the huge deposits.

Therefore, Assessing officer had reason to believe that an estimated amount of at least Rs. 32.32 crores had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147/148 of the IT act for the AY 2011-12 and issued notice dated 27.3.2018 under section 148 of the act.

The appellant has issued assessment order dated 05.12.2018 under section 144/147 of the IT Act for AY 2011-12 to the respondent company resulting into creation of demand of Rs. 43,06,130/-. Consequently, to assessment order, penalty proceedings have been initiated.

In the meanwhile, on 30.06.2017, IT department came to know that the name of the Respondent company has been "Struck Off by the Registrar of Companies vide STK- dated 30.06.2017.

Ld. Counsel for the Income Tax submits that the aforesaid facts necessitate restoration of the name of the Respondent Company 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) of the Code.

The petition/Appeal is allowed. The RoC is directed to restore the name of the Respondent Company 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 2nd respondent company 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/ Applicant's entitlement to recover any tax etc. which shall be adjudicated by the 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 applicant. Petition is disposed off in terms of the above. The counsel for the appellant shall obtain a certified copy of this order to submit before the concerned ROC for compliance.