Income Tax Officer, Ward 20(1) vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

This Appeal has been filed by Income tax Officer, Ward 20(1), New Delhi invoking the provisions of Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 for restoration of the name of the Respondents-Company M/s.Parampara Buildcon Private Limited in the register maintained by the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana.

As per the averments, M/s. Parampara Buildcon Pvt Ltd is a private limited company registered with Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana on 04.12.2006 having its Registered office at M/s. Parampara Buildcon Pvt Ltd.,GF-23-24, Aggarwal Cyber Plaza,Netaji Subhash Palace, Pitampura, Delhi 110034 having CIN No.U45200DL2006PTC156188 and authorized share capital of the Company is Rs.30,00,000/- and paid up share capital of the Company is 16,90,000/-.

That directors of the Respondent No.2- company, being Mr. Arun Gupta and Mr. Deepak Gupta have been arrayed as Respondent No.3, Respondent no.4 respectively.

From the information available with the Revenue through adit (Inv.), Unit 6(3), New Delhi and ADIT (Inv.) (Hq.), Chandigarh it was observed that the respondent-company received accommodation entry of Rs.2,00,00,000/- from Mr. Himanshu Verma through its entity M/s. Cardwell Projects & Developments Pvt Ltd., (currently known as M/s. Netikta Projects Development Private Limited) during F.Y. 2011-12 and tha the respondent - company had paid unexplained sum of Rs., 1,00,00,000/- to Mr. Adel Saini. Hence the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that an amount of atleast Rs.3,00,00,000/- had escaped assessment in terms of Sec.147/ 148 of the Income-tax Act for A.Y. 2012-13 as a result of respondent-company not declaring these facts fully and truly on its own in their ITR filed on 30.09.2012 for A.T. 2012-13.

During the course of assessment proceedings, notices u/s 142(1) were issued to the respondent-company but the respondent company did not furnish even a single details. Keeping in view continuous non-compliances, Show-cause notices u/s 142(1) dated 13.11.2019 to furnish explanation as to why the present assessment in assesse comanyu case for A.Y. 2012-13 should not be comleted on the basis of material available on record.

The total income of the respondent company was computed as Rs.3,00,78,990/- vide Assessment Order dated 03.12.2019. Penalty notices dated 03.12.2019 u/sec.271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income-tax were issued against the respondent company.

On further enquiry it was found that respondent -company is not in existence and its name has been struck off by ROC from its Register of Companies.

The respondent-company is trying to escape the assessment proceedings and the liability that may arise out of the said proceedings.

On perusal of the MCA website, the appellant came to know that respondent- company was given notice by ROC vide No.ROC-DEL/248/STK-5/2018/2912 dated 18.06.2018 and subsequently struck off vide Notification No. ROC/DELHI/248(5) / STK-7/ 4865 dated 08.08.2018 at Sr.No.24280 in teinis 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 by the ROC.

It is submitted by the appellant that the name of the respondent company had been struck off by the ROC without enquiry and the same was not intimated to the Appellant, Assessing Officer Income-tax or the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax. The same could not be allowed to be invoked resulting in escapement of tax liability or any other liability on the company which seeks to get its name removed from the register of the Ld. ROC.

The appellant submitted that the Income Tax department being aggrieved under the Section 252 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 for recovering the taxes due and for any further consequential proceedings against the respondent-company.

It is further submitted that since the respondent company has become non-existent entity, the respondent company and its directors are trying to escape the assessment proceedings and the liability that will arise out of the said proceedings.

The respondent-company failed to appear before the Court to provide its defence. Hence, the Order was reserved on 26.02.2021.

To render assessment order valid in the eyes of Law and to enable the Appellant to take steps for recovery of taxes and for any further consequential proceedings, the respondent- company's name be restored to the Register of Companies as if the name of the company was never struck off.

Denial to restore the name of the respondent company in the Register of the ROC will not only condone the wrong doing of the respondent company but it will also encourage of escapement of tax liabilities by such subterfuge which will be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in the long run. The service of notice to respondents has been made through publication in newspaper, but none appeared.

Upon perusal of the documents and submissions made, this appeal is allowed. The Registrar of companies is 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 accordingly.

Let the copy of the order be served to the parties.