Income Tax Officer Ward 16(2) vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors

L.N. Gupta, Member (T)

The present Appeal is preferred by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 16(2), against the striking off of the name of M/s. Marshal and Detectives Ltd. ("the Company"), from the Register of Companies.

It is stated by the Appellant that the Company is a Limited Company incorporated under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956, on 26.05.1988 with CIN No. U74140DL1988PLC031845. The Authorised Share Capital of the company is Rs. 15,00,000 and the Paid-up Capital of the company is Rs. 1,00,000. The registered Office of the Company is at T-100, Tethod Near Okhala, Phase-I, New Delhi. Therefore, the jurisdiction lies with this Bench of the Tribunal.

The Appellant in its petition has averred that :

"6. That the information regarding financial activities by the Assessee Company has been obtained from ITD system through the "Non-filers Monitoring system" wherein it has been mentioned that the Assessee by using its PAN has received contractual payments of Rs. 21,17,708/- during the FY 2009-10. That these receipts clearly form a part of the taxable income earned by the Assessee Company during the year under consideration."

It is further submitted by the Appellant that the Company had not filed its Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2010-11. It is stated by the Appellant that the Respondent Company has violated Section 139 of the I.T. Act by not filing its I.T. return for the Assessment Year 2010-11.

It is stated by the Appellant that it had issued a Notice dated 29.03.2017 to the Respondent Company. It is further submitted by the Appellant that the said notice remained un-served.

The Appellant has submitted that on perusal of the Master Data available on the MCA website, they had come to know that the said Respondent Company namely, M/s. Marshal and Detectives Ltd. has been "struck off by ROC.

It is stated by the Appellant that an amount of Rs. 21,17,708 is required to be assessed in the hands of the Respondent Company under Section 68 of the I.T. Act. It is contended that to undertake the Assessment Proceedings, the name of the Respondent Company needs to be restored in the register of RoC.

The Appellant contends that in order to have a valid assessment order for recovery of the taxes from the Respondent Company and for any further consequential proceedings against the company under the I.T. Act, there is a need of restoration of the Company, namely, M/s. Marshal and Detectives Ltd. in the Register of Companies.

The Appellant has affected service of Notice to the Respondent No. 2 to 4 vide Speed Post. As none appeared on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 to 4, they were proceeded ex-parte vide Order dated 17.02.2020 passed by this Bench.

It is submitted by the Appellant during the final hearing that the assessment order has been upheld by the Appellate Authority and has attained finality.

That the Respondent No. 1 i.e., RoC submitted during the final hearing that they do not have any objection if the name of the Respondent Company is restored in the Register of RoC.

The Income Tax Department is an aggrieved party within the meaning of Section 252(1) read with 252(3) as it has to recover taxes and duties payable by Respondent Company and great prejudice will be caused to its revenues, if the name of the Company is not restored back. Accordingly, in sequel to the above, it being just and equitable to allow restoration of the name of the company, the Appeal is allowed. The Registrar of Companies, is directed to restore the name of M/s. Marshal and Detectives Ltd. in its Register, as if the name of the Company had not been struck off in accordance with Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013. ROC is also directed to take any other penal action against the Respondents for default if any, in accordance with the Statutory provisions.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Let the copy of Order be supplied to parties.