AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is filed by Income Tax Department through Income Tax Officer, Ward 20(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 Prachi Snacks & Beverages Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at 414, 4th Floor, R.G. Trade Netaji Subhash Place,
Pitampura, Delhi- 110034, bearing CIN U52590 DL2013 PTC250567, Ms. Bhawana Phutela and Mr. Rajiv Kumar Phutela, are Respondents No. 3
and 4 who are Directors of the Company.
It is submitted that from Revenue ITBA/AIMS module of Actionable Information Monitoring System (AIMS) with the Income Tax Department, it
is observed that during the A.Y. 2017-18, the Respondent-Company has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 11,50,000/- in its Axis bank account during
the demonetization period 08.11.2016 to 31.12.2016. As per the IT system, the respondent did not file its ITR, for A.Y. 2017-18, and did not disclose
material facts necessary for 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. 11,50,000/-. 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 12.03.2018 was issued. The said
notice was never replied to, by the Directors nor by any other representative of the Company.
The Assessment Orders were passed dated 16.12.2019 and further Penalty Order was also passed against Respondent No. 2 Company, for the
A.Y. 2017-18 .
On perusal of the MCA website, the Appellant has come to know that the 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.
15687) 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 to 4 were served through publication in one
English and one Vernacular Newspaper vide publication dated 15.01.2020. None appeared for Respondents No. 2 to 4, hence they have been
proceeded ex parte vide order dated 12.02.2020.
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.