Income Tax Officer Ward 15(4), New Delhi vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

This appeal is filed by Income Tax Department through Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(4), 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 Lords Creative Marketing Private Limited, having its registered office at 609, Pearl Best Height-2, Netaji Subhash

Place, Pitampura, North Delhi- 110034, bearing CIN U52100 DL2011 PTC220558, Mr. Harshdeep Singh and Mr. Mahender Kumar Bhatia are

Respondents No. 3 and 4 who are Directors of the Company.

It is submitted that the information available with the Revenue through NMS/ITD Software, information from AIR/CIB Statements and Individual

Transaction Statements (ITS), 26AS and I-taxnet, it is observed that during the A.Y. 2012-13, the Respondent-Company has made cash deposit

amounting to Rs. 3,10,000/- in its bank account. As per the Appellant, the respondent no. 2 did not file its ITR and did not disclose fully and truly all

material facts necessary for assessment, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that an estimated amount of Rs. 3,10,000/- had escaped

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. 3,10,000/-. 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- 4, notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, dated 28.03.2019 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 27.11.2019 and further penalty order was also passed, against Respondent no. 2 Company, for the A.Y.

2012-13.

On perusal of the MCA website, the Appellant has come to know that 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 Appellant submits that in the Month of November 2019, on perusal of the documents filed with the ROC, the Master Data of the Respondent

No. 2 Company was reflecting the status of the Companies as “Strike Offâ€. The Appellant has not annexed or mentioned any details with respect

to the Public Notice issued by ROC in form STK-5 or STK-7 in the Appeal. The copy of Master Data reflecting the status of Respondent No. 2

Company, as “Strike Off†is filed by the Appellant. The copy of Gazette Notification dated 19.11.2015 under Section 560(5) of the Companies

Act, 1956, declaring the Company as dissolved, is also annexed with the Appeal. Hence, the request of the Appellant for revival of the name of the

Company can be considered.

The Respondents were served with appeal and service affidavit is filed. The Respondents were served through publication in one English and one

vernacular newspaper vide publication dated 30.10.2020. None appeared for Respondents. Hence, Respondents except ROC are proceeded ex parte

vide order dated 11.01.2021.

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.