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

This Appeal has been filed by Income-tax Officer, Ward 20(4), 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. RSJ Engineers Private Limited, RSJ House, RZ- 138, Dharampura I, Najafgarh, New

Delhi 110015 in The register maintained by the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana The respondent- company is engaged in the real

estate market of residential, industrial, commercial, recreational and institutional properties for its clients.

As per the averments, M/s. RSJ Engineers Private Limited was incorporated on 23.12.2003 as a private limited company and has its registered

office at RSJ House, RZ-138, Dharampura I, Najafgarh, New Delhi 110015 having CIN No. U29199DL2003PTC123657. The Authorized share

capital of the Company is Rs.1,00,000/- and paid up share capital of the Company is Rs.1,00,000/-.

The directors of the company, being, Jitender Dahiya and Ran Singh have been arrayed as Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No.4 respectively.

It is submitted by the appellants that ITD System reflects that during A.Y. 2010-2011 relevant to F.Y.2010-11 the respondent Company received

professional fee amounting to Rs.1,73,897/- on which TDS u/Sec.194J of the Income-tax Act has been deducted and the ITR for the relevant year

has not been filed. Reassessment proceedings in the case of respondent-company U/Sec.147/ 148 of the Income-tax Ac t for A.Y. 2011-12 for

undisclosed financial transactions under in the F.Y. 2010-11 are pending which are getting time barred on 31.12.2018. Thus by way of this Appeal

Revenue sought restoration of the Company's name to the register of RoC for framing assessment and further consequential proceedings against the

respondent-company in the interest of public at large.

Therefore, appellant has reasons to believe that respondent has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147/148 for A.Y. 2011-12 for an

estimated amount of at least Rs.1,73,897/- thereby rendering the respondent -company liable for consequences under Income Tax Act, 1961 and

entitling the Revenue to initiate proceedings against the company. The case of respondent company has been re-opened u/sec.147 of IT Act for A.Y.

2011-12 and the said proceedings are pending. Appellant served notice to respondent -company Vide Notice No.ITBA/AST/S/148/20-17-

18/1009535421(1) dated 29.03.2018.

On perusal of the MCA website, the appellant has come to know that the name of the respondent company was struck off vide Notification ROC-

DEL/248(5)/STK-7/5071 dated 01.09.2017 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, 20i6 by the ROC. A demand Notice and Challan was served

upon the respondent-company vide Notice dated 19.11.2018 and penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(b) for non-compliance , 271F for not filing

ITR and Sec.271(1)(c) for concealment were initiated separately.

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 framing Assessment Order 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 appellant has further submitted that in order to initiate proceedings for assessment of income against the respondent company for AY 2011-12

which are pending and getting time barred by limitation on 31.12.2018. 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 he 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.

The respondents failed to appear before the Court to provide its defence. Hence, the Order was reserved on 15,12.2020. 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.