Income-Tax Officer, Ward 22(1) vs Registrar Of Companies, Nct Of Delhi And Haryana & Another

Sumita Furkayastha, {Member Technical)

 This Appeal has been filed by Income tax Office, Ward 22(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. S.R. Prompt Solutions Private Limited in the register maintained by the Registrar of

Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana.

 As per the averments, M/s. S.R. Prompt Solutions Pvt. Ltd., is a private limited company registered with Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi

& Haryana on 09.03.2010 having its Registered office at E-72, Preet Vihar, Delhi 110092 having CIN No.U74900DL2010PTC 199861. The

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

 That directors of the Respondent No.2- company, being Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr. Santosh Ranjan have been arrayed as Respondent No.3,

Respondent no.4 respectively.

 From the information available with the Revenue through NMS/ ITD Software, information from AIR/ CIB Statements and Individual

Transaction Statements (ITS) and 26AS, it is observed that during the F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to A.Y. 2012-13, the respondent-company has received

Fees for professional/ technical services amounting to Rs. 12,80,614/-. According to information, the respondent company must be having at least

Rs.6,40,307/-as income (being 50% of total receipt).

As per IT System, the respondentO-company has not filed its ITR for A.Y. 2012-13. As per provisions of Sec. 139 of the I.T. Act, every company is

mandatorily required to file its return of Income within the prescribed time. Thus the respondent-company has violated the provisions of the income-

tax Act by not filing the ITR and did not disclose fully all the material facts for assessment. Thus the Appellant has reason to believe that an estimated

amount of atleast Rs.3,66,139/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of Sec. 147/148 thereby rendering the company liable for consequences

under income-tax Act, 1961 entitling the Revenue to initiate proceedings against the company. Thus prima facie it appears tax evasion which requires

action in accordance with the Law.

Approval of competent authority for re-opening of assessment of the respondent-company was obtained after recording reasons for re-opening.

Appellant issued Notice dated 30.03.2019 U/Sec.148. The case of respondent-company has been re-opened u/sec. 147 of the Income-tax Act for

framing the assessment order, for recovering the taxes due and for any other consequential proceedings against the company under the Income-tax

Act. A further notice dated 18.07.2019 u/sec. 142(1) was issued to the respondent-company.

As per IT System, the respondent-company did not file its ITR for A.Y. 2012-13 despite the fact that during F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to A.Y.. 2012-13,

there were substantial credits in its Bank account. As per provisions of Sec. 139, every company is mandatorily required to file its return of income

before the due date in prescribed Form duly certified thus Respondent- company violated the provisions of Income-tax Act.

 Assessment Order dated 26.11.2019 U/Sec. 143(3)/ 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been filed before the Bench along with Demand

Notice and Penalty Notice dated 28.11.2019 U/Sec.271(l)(c ) and Notice dated 28.11.2019 U/Sec. 27IF of the Income-tax Act, 1961 issued to the

respondent-company.

 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’s name was struck off by ROC initially by issuing

Notice No.ROC-DEL/248/STK-5/721 dated 27.04.2017 followed by Notification No.ROC-DEL/248(5)/STK-7/2879 dated 30.06.2017, striking off the

name of Company at Sr.No. 16810 from the Register of Registrar of Companies.

 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 Income Tax Department. 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 respondent-company failed to appear before the Court to provide its defence. Hence, the Order was reserved on 02.08.2021.

 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.