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

This appeal is filed by Income Tax Department through Income Tax Officer, Ward- 19(2), New Delhi, having office at Room No. 225D, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi- 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 PRJ Automobile Private Limited, having its registered office at L- 2, Green Park Extension, New Delhi- 110016, bearing CIN U74899 DL1990 PTC003234, Mr. Raj Kumar Jain and Mr. Vijit Lal Mathur are respondents no. 3 and 4 who are directors of the company.

It is submitted that as per information available with Revenue through NMS/ITD Software, information from AIR/CIB Statements and Individual Transaction Statements (ITS), it is observed that during the A.Y. 2011-12, the respondent-company has contractual receipts and receipts from Commission or Brokerage amounting to Rs. 8,69,718/- on which TDS has been deducted under Section 194C and 194H of the Income Tax, Act. As per appellant, the respondent no. 2 did not file its ITR and did not disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, thus, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that an income amount of at least Rs. 8,69,718/- had escaped assessment.

It is submitted that as per details found on AIR data, the assessee has received cash transaction of Rs. 9,80,000/- with Urban Co-operative Bank received in interest other than interest on securities to a resident of Rs. 53,403/- and contractual receipt of Rs. 22,25,000/- and as per ITS data an amount of Rs. 32,58,403/- during the A.Y. 2011-12. As per appellant, the respondent no. 2 did not file its ITR and did not disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, thus, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that an income amount of Rs. 32,58,403/- 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 amount of at least Rs. 8,69,718/- and Rs. 32,58,403. 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- 7, notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, dated 30.03.2018 was issued. The said notice was never replied to, by the Directors nor by any other representative of the company.

The Assessment Order was passed dated 11.12.2018 and further Penalty Order was 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-5/2336 dated 13.06.2017. Consequently, Appellant's name was struck off vide Notice bearing No. ROC/DELHI/248(5)/STK-7/5071 dated on 01.09.2017 (Company's name appearing at Sl. No. 16439) whereby name of 24945 Companies have been struck off w.e.f. 21.08.2017 from the Registrar of Companies.

The respondents were served with appeal and service affidavit has been filed. The respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 were served through application and also publication in one English and one vernacular newspaper vide publication dated 05.09.2019. None appeared for respondents no. 2, 3 and 4. Hence, respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 are proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 09.03.2021.

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.