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

This petition has been filed by Income Tax Authority, through its Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 16(2) C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi,

invoking the provisions of Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 for restoration of the name of the Respondent No. 2 company, viz M/S. Mansion

Hotel Private Limited, in the Register of Companies maintained by the RoC.

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 10.06.2008 having CIN U55101DL2008PTC179302.

The company is having registered office at F-69 B, Patel Park Street No. 12, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.

Authorized share capital of the Company is Rs.9,00,000/-divided into 90,000 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.

The appellant has pointed out that the appellant company decided to close the company without filing their ITRs and availed of the Fast Track Exit

Mode. On their application the appellant company was struck off u/s 560(3) of the Companies Act 1956 on 31.05.2013 but no return of income had

been filed by the company.

Proceedings for Assessment Year 2009-10 were initiated u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, notice u/ s 148 of the I.T. Act dated

21.03.2016 were issued and sent by speed post to the Assessee company at three addresses and to the assessee company through its two directors,

requiring the assessee company to file the return of income. The notice u/s 148 was also served through an affixture. The Notice from the address of

the assessee company and one of the directors was received back unserved. However, notice u/s 148 dated 21.03.2016 of the assessee company

through its director Shri Vineet Sharma was duly served. No return was filed by the assessee within 30 days.

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 & 3 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 the name of the company in order to take forward proceedings initiated against the company. As per

averments by the appellant, on the basis of the information received by the Income Tax department, the respondent company had received share

application money and share premium of Rs. 2,87,89,318/-on 03.11.2008 from one M/s HHG Global Pte Limited Singapore.

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 2010-11 is pending. Notice dated 30.03.2017 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was

issued to the respondent at its registered address as well as through affixation, to which there is no response from the Respondent No. 2 to 4 being the

company and its ex-directors.

The assessment order for assessment year 2010-11, dated 15.12.2017 for the total demand of Rs. 39,74,318/- was also issued on the respondent

which is at Annexure -A5, to which no response was ever received.

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 2010-11, 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 qualifying 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.