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

Dr. Deepti Mukesh, J

The appeal is filed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward - 15(2), New Delhi, against the striking off of the name of the M/s. Larkspur Marketing and Consulting India Private Limited ("the company"), from the register of companies.

It is stated that, the company is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, on 06.02.2008 having CIN No. U70120 DL2008 PTC173637 with Authorized capital Rs. 5,00,000/- and paid up capital of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The registered office of the company is stated to be at 19/602, East End Apartments, Mayur Vihar, Phase - I, Extension, New Delhi - 110096. Therefore, the jurisdiction lies with this Tribunal.

The Appellant states that, as per the Information obtained through NMS Cycle -1 (ITD Software) and from Individual Transaction Statements (TDS 15A) from where it is observed that the respondent company had transaction on account of Remittance to a non-resident or to foreign company of Rs. 3,91,960/- during the F. Y. 2010-11 relevant to A. Y. 2011-12.

The Appellant submits that the case of M/s. Larkspur Marketing and Consulting India Private Limited was identified by the Non-Filer Monitoring System (NMS) as the company had not filed its Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2011-12 and did not disclose fully and truly all material particulars. The Assessing Officer had reasons to believe that an estimated amount of at least Rs. 3,91,960/- has not been brought under tax and income of the respondent company has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2011-12, thereby rendering the company liable for consequences under Income Tax Act, 1961 and entitling the Revenue to initiate proceedings against the company.

It is further stated by the Appellant, that the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961, dated 26.03.2018 was issued to M/s. Larkspur Marketing and Consulting India Private Limited and that assessment/reassessment proceedings so initiated were getting barred by limitation on 31.12.2018.

Appellant has submitted that vide Public Notice no. ROC-DEL/248/STK-5/721 was issued on 27.04.2017 in Form - 5 by the Registrar of Companies (ROC). It was found during the course of the assessment/reassessment proceedings that the name of the company was struck off from the register of companies as per MCA master data of the company, vide notice dated 30.06.2017 being Public Notice no. ROC-DEL/248(5)/STK-7/2879 in Form STK-7 (Company's name appearing at Sl. No. 10980). The legality of the striking off the name of the company from the register of the companies is sought to be assailed on the ground that the assessment/reassessment proceedings were to result in an addition of Rs. 3,91,960/- in the Taxable Income of Company.

The Appellant further states that Show Cause notice dated 17.10.2018 alongwith Penalty Order under Section 271(1)(b) with Demand Notice dated 14.11.2018 for an amount of Rs. 10,000/-of the Income Tax Act were issued. An Assessment Order dated 16.11.2018 has since been passed under section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which has resulted in creation of demand of Rs. 2,42,232/- which was required to be paid within 30 days, failing which consequences were to follow in accordance with provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, Penalty Notice under Section 271(1)(c) dated 16.11.2018 were issued. Copies of said orders and notices has been annexed with the appeal.

The Appellant has filed its affidavit of service on 31.10.2019, wherein it states that service through publication was effected on the Respondent Company and its directors in pursuance of the order of this Tribunal. It is further stated that in spite of, proper service to the respondent nos. 2 to 5, none appeared. Hence, the case was proceeded ex-parte against the said Respondents vide order dated 06.11.2019. Affidavit of services has been filed.

The Income Tax Department is an aggrieved party within the meaning of section 252(1) and a creditor under Section 252(3) as it has to recover taxes payable by respondent company and great prejudice will be caused to the Appellant if the name of the respondent company is not restored back. In the 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 Company 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 never been struck off in accordance with Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Let the copy of order be supplied to parties.