Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(4) vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors

Hemant Kumar Sarangi, Member (T)

The appeal is filed by Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(4) New Delhi, against the striking off of the name of the M/s Navrup Packers Private Limited

(“the companyâ€​), from the register of companies.

It is stated that the company is a private limited company, incorporated under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956, on 14.02.2005 having CIN No.

U21029 DL2005 PTC132955 with authorized share capital of Rs. 15,000,00/- and paid up share capital of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The registered office of the

company is stated to be at E-91, Karam Pura, New Delhi - 110015. Therefore, the jurisdiction lies with this Bench of the Tribunal.

The Appellant states that, M/s Navrup Packers Private Limited filed its Income Tax Return for A. Y. 2011-12 declaring loss of (-) Rs. 2,206/-. The

return was processed under Section 143(3) of the I. T. Act and an addition of Rs. 4,88,00,000/- was made thereby creating a demand of Rs.

2,33,41,54/- vide notice of demand dated 25.03.2014, as the respondent company does not exists at the given address and statutory notices have not

been responded. The appellant has reason to believe that an estimated amount of at least Rs. 4,88,00,000/- has escaped assessment during the

Financial Year 2010-2011 relevant for the A.Y. 2011-12. This receipt is clearly out of taxable income earned by the Assessee Company during the

year under consideration. However, as per the ITD system and records the Assessee has not filed any return of income for the year under

consideration till date.

In spite of, proper service to the respondent nos. 2 to 4 none appeared. Hence, the case was proceeded ex-parte against the said Respondents vide

order dated 03.09.2019. Affidavit of services has been filed.

It is further stated by the Appellant, that notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961, dated 31.03.2018 for A.Y. 2011-12 was issued to

M/s Navrup Packers Private Limited and that assessment / reassessment proceedings so initiated were getting barred by limitation on 31.12.2018.

It is submitted that vide notice dated 27.04.2017 being Public Notice no. ROC-DEL/248/STK-5/721 in Form â€" 5, the Registrar of Companies

(ROC) had sought explanation from the company as to why its name should not be struck off from the register of companies, on account of not

carrying on any business or operation for a period of two immediately preceding financial years and having not made any application within such

period for obtaining the status of dormant company under section 455 of the Companies Act, 2013.

The Appellant has submitted that it is not known whether M/s Navrup Packers Private Limited made any representation to the ROC in pursuance

of the STK-5. 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 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. 13138). 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. 4,88,00,000/- thereby creating a demand of Rs. 2,33,41,540/-

in the Taxable Income of the company.

The ROC has filed its reply on 20.08.2019 in which it has been stated that the Company had not filed its Financial Statement since Financial Year

ended on 31.03.2014. However, the ROC further submits that the company was struck off by the office of Respondent, as neither the company was

carrying on any operation for a period of two immediately preceding financial years, nor it obtained the status of a Dormant Company under Section

455 of the Companies Act, 2013.

The Appellant further submitted that Assessment Order dated 25.03.2014 has been passed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income

Tax Act, 1961 which has resulted in creation of demand of Rs. 2,33,41,540/- copy of the assessment order along with demand notice passed under

section 156 has been annexed with the appeal, which was required to be paid within 30 days, failing which consequences are to follow in accordance

with provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. As the Respondent Company has failed to furnish its return of income within stipulated time as required

under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A. Y. 2011-12, therefore penalty orders along with demand notice dated 19.09.2014, under

Section 271(1)(c) & Section 156 respectively, for an amount of Rs. 1,62,10,140/- were issued. Copy of the said assessment order along with demand

notice has been annexed with the appeal.

The Appellant has filed its affidavit of service on 29.04.2019, it has been stated that the copy of appeal was sent through speed post to the

company at three available addresses and its Directors at their last known address as per the MCA portal, however, the same returned un-served on

any of the respondents. The tracking Report of the consignments are annexed along with the Affidavit.

The Appellant has filed its affidavit of service dated 16.08.2019, it has been stated that the publication was done in English newspaper

“Business Standardâ€, Delhi edition dated 25.04.2019. The publication was also done in Hindi newspaper “Jansattaâ€, Delhi edition dated

25.04.2019. Copy of newspapers has been annexed along with the affidavit.

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 2011-12, 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, because of it being struck off from the register of companies.

The Income Tax Department is an aggrieved party within the meaning of section 252(1) as it has to recover taxes payable 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 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 disposed of accordingly.

Let the copy of order be supplied to parties.