Income Tax Officer, Ward-20(4) vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

This appeal is filed by Income Tax Department, through its Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 27(4) 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 Zibli Marketing

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 08.06.2009 having CIN U74999DL2009PTC191016.

The company is having registered office at 201, Aditya Building No. 7, Commercial Complex, Preet Vihar, New Delhi-110092.

The Authorized share capital of the Company is Rs. 2,00,000/- and issued, subscribed and paid up share capital of the Company is Rs. 2,00,000/-.

As per the notice of non- compliance of provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 in respect to filing of annual returns and financial statements, 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 being Respondents No. 2 to 4 hence 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

information available with NMS/ITD software and Annual Information Report from where it is observed that the respondent company has cash

transactions exceeding Rs. 10,00,000/- in a month during the F.Y. 2010-11, relevant to A.Y. 2011-12. Notices under section 133(6) were issued to

various parties in which response has been received from HDFC Bank. As per the statement received from HDFC bank, the respondent

company’s bank account no. 1350232000573 shows cumulative debits and credits of Rs. 5,79,438.20/- and Rs. 5,59,173.52/- during the period

01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 relevant to A.Y. 2011-12. However, the respondent company has not filed its ITR for A.Y. 2011-12. In view of the above,

the assessing officer has reason to believe that an income of more than Rs. 1.00 lakhs has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147/148

of the Income Tax Act and has not brought under tax for the A.Y. 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 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 28.03.2018 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the respondent at the registered address of

Respondent No. 2 company and also on the Email ID registered with MCA, but there is no response from the Respondent No. 2 to 4 being the

company and its ex-directors.

The assessment order dated 14.12.2018 under section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 along with demand notice under section 156 of the

Income Tax Act was also issued on the respondent which is at Annexure -A1, to which no response was ever received. Notice under section 274

read with section 271 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was also issued on the respondent 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.