Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(2) vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

This appeal is filed by Income Tax Department, through its Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 19(2) CR. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi, under

Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 (for brevity ‘the Act’) against the order of striking off the name of the company M/S Ours Trading

And Holding Private Limited (for brevity ‘the Company’) passed by the respondent under section 248 (1) of the Act read with Rule 7 of

Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016 published on 30.06.2017 vide notification no. ROC-

DEL/248(5)/STK-7/2879 by Registrar of Companies, the respondent herein.

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 18.11.1985 having CIN U74899DL1985PTC022547.

The company is having registered office at 16B/9, Bolni Chambers, D.B. Gupta Road, Delhi-110088.

Authorized share capital of the Company is Rs.10,00,000/-divided into 1,00,000 equity shares of Rs.10/- each and issued, subscribed and paid up

share capital of the Company is Rs.4,14,300/- divided into 41,430 equity shares of Rs.10/- each.

As per the notice of non- compliance of provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 in respect to filing of annual returns and financial statements since

incorporation in the year 2009, the name of the 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.

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 to 4 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 Respondent No. 2 company in order to take forward proceedings initiated against the company. As per

averments the information received from Investigation Wing, Mumbai, received by the Income Tax department, the respondent company had traded in

the suspicious penny scripts which is used to introduce unaccounted income of the beneficiaries in the form of exempt capital gain or short-term

capital loss in their books of accounts and an amount of Rs. 10,79,14,410/- is unexplained income in the hands of the respondent company. In view of

the above, the said amount is concealed income and has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act and has

not been brought under tax for the Assessment Year 2011-12.

The appellant has further submitted that it is apprehended and prima facie, 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 the IT returns was filed by the appellant company though late but the assessment of income of the Company for the Assessment Year

2011-12 is pending and getting time barred by limitation on 31.12.2018. Notice dated 31.03.2018 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was

issued to the respondent at the registered address of Respondent No. 2 company and at address of ex-directors of the Respondent No. 3 & 4 through

speed post as well as through affixation, which are duly received by them, but there is no response from the Respondent No. 2 to 4 being the company

and its ex-directors, service affidavit to that effect is filed by the appellant company.

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 2011-12, 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 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.