Income Tax Officer, Ward 16(3), New Delhi vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

Hemant Kumar Sarangi, Member (T)

This appeal is filed by Income Tax Authority, through Income Tax Officer, Ward 16(3), New Delhi, under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013

(for brevity ‘the Act’) against the order of striking off the name of the company M/s Manas Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (for brevity ‘the

Company’), passed by the respondent no.1, Registrar of Companies.

The company was incorporated as a Private Limited Company under the provision of Companies Act, 1956 with the Registrar of Companies, NCT

of Delhi and Haryana on 06.07.2009 having CIN No. U32109DL2009PTC191952 and having its registered office at G-18, Ground Floor, Garg Tower,

Near PP Jewellers, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi-110034.

Authorized share capital of the Company is Rs.10,00,000/-and issued, subscribed and paid up share capital of the Company is Rs.6,50,000/-.

As per the notice of non-compliance of provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, in respect to non filing of annual returns and financial statements,

the name of the company was struck off by the notice no. ROC-DEL/248(5)/SKT-7/2879, dated 30.06.2017, by the respondent no.1, Registrar of

Companies in terms of the provision of section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 9 of the companies (Removal of Names of

Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016.

As per the submission made by the appellant, neither the Assessing Officer nor the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax, in the case of the

assessee, were informed or made privy to the proceedings for removal of name of the Assessee Company from the register of the ROC.

The Appellant has filed proof of service, wherein he submits that service was duly effected on the respondents vide speed post. This bench has

proceeded ex-parte against the respondents no. 2, 3, 4 vide the order dated 27.07.2019.

The Appellant prays for the restoration of company, namely M/s Manas Electronics Pvt. Ltd., in order to take forward proceedings initiated against

the company. As per averments, the respondent company has filed its ITR for A.Y. 2012-13 on 20.09.2012 declaring loss of Rs.99/- (Rupees Ninety

Nine), and the said return was processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act. On basis of the information received by the Income Tax Officer (Inc.)

OSD/ Unit 4, New Delhi, vide communication dated 22.03.2019, Inter-alia, stating that the Respondent Company has many accounts in various banks

and voluminous transactions (both number wise and amount and amount wise), has taken place in these accounts during the F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to

the A.Y. 201213.

The appellant states that, It was found that the respondent Company had not disclosed the bank account no. 0083830000032 of the respondent

company with Yes Bank Ltd. in its ITR. After examination of the said bank account, it was revelaed that the respondent company had made credit

entries to the extent of Rs.53,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Three Lakhs), in the said account by way of Cash Deposited/ Funds Transfer/ RTGS. Later on

these funds were debited through transfer and RTGS/ clearing having closing balance as ‘NIL’. In view of the above, enquiries made by the

ITO (Investigation) and the facts gathered show that the Respondent Company is not a real independent company and the transactions i.e., an amount

of Rs.53,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Three Lakhs), credited in the bank account of the respondent company is its undisclosed income.

The appellant has further submitted that it appears that there is tax evasion, that an estimated amount of at least Rs.53,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Three

Lakhs) in A.Y. 2012-13 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and action in accordance with law is

required to be initiated against the company. Reasons for reopening of assessment were recorded by the Assessing Officer, for which Principal

Commissioner Income Tax has accorded his approval for the issuance of notice. Notice dated 31 .03.2019 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act,

1961 for the assessment year 2012-13 was issued to the respondent.

The appellant has further submitted that Reasons for issue of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were served on the

respondent at its registered address and also Form for recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings under section 148 is annexed with the

appeal.

The Ld. Counsel for the Income Tax submits that in order to recover the taxes on the undisclosed income of the respondent company and to

charge and recover the revenue from the transactions from the respondent company during the assessment year 2012-13, it necessitates restoration of

the Respondent Company in the Register of Companies to proceed further in accordance with law, since as on date the proceedings cannot continue

against the company, for it being struck off.

The income tax department is an aggrieved party within the meaning of section 252(1) as it has to recover taxes payables by respondent company

and great prejudice will be caused to Revenue 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 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.