Income Tax Officer, Ward- 19(1), New Delhi vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

This appeal is filed byIncome Tax Department throughIncome Tax Officer, Ward 19(1), 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 Ocean King Construction Private Limited, is the stuck of companyhaving its registered office at RZ-101, KotlaVihar

Phase- II, TilangpurKotla, New Delhi- 110043, bearingCIN U45200 DL2006 PTC155227,Mr.RakeshRanjanJha and Mr.Rajiv Ranjanare respondents

no.3 and 4 who are directors of the company.

It is submitted that as per the information with Revenue through NMS/ITD/AIR/CIB Statements and Individual Transaction Statements (ITS) and

26AS, it is observed that the respondent-company has made cash transaction of more than Rs. 10,00,000/- in a month and also received business

income amounting to Rs. 3,44,52,989/- subject to TDS under Section 194C (contractual receipts) during the A.Y. 2011-12. 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 contractual income of Rs. 3,44,52,989/- and cash transaction of Rs. 10,00,000/- 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. 3,44,52,989/-. 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 27.03.2018 was issued. The said

notice was never replied to, by the Directors nor by any other representative of the company.

The Assessment Order was passeddated 03.12.2018and further Penalty Orderwas also passed, against respondent no. 2 company for the A.Y.

2011-12.

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 Respondent herein had issued Public Notice bearing No. ROC/DELHI/248/STK-5/2018/2912 dated 18.06.2018. Consequently, Appellant’s

name was struck off vide Notice bearing No. ROC/DELHI/248(5)/STK-7/4865 dated on 08.08.2018 (Company’s name appearing at Sl. No.

18684) whereby name of 24280 Companies have been struck off w.e.f. 08.08.2018 from the Registrar of Companies.

The respondents were served with appeal and service affidavit is filed. The respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 are served through email, speed post and

through affixation respectively. None appears for respondents no. 2 to 4. Matter to proceed ex-parte, against respondents no. 2 to 4 vide order dated

06.02.2020.

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.