Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(1), New Delhi vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

This appeal is filed by Income Tax Department through Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(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 Sejun Tours and Travels Private Limited is a company incorporated on 29.06.2005 under the provision of Companies

Act, 1956, as a Private Limited Company with the ROC-Delhi, having its registered office at 502A, Harmony Apartments Plot No.- 6B, Sector-23,

Dwarka, New Delhi, West Delhi- 110075, bearing CIN U63040 DL2005 PTC138112. The Authorized share capital of the Company is Rs.5,00,000/-

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

The Directors of the company, being Mr. Rakesh Ranjan Samdarshi and Mr. Shadab Sultan, have been arrayed as Respondent No. 3 and

Respondent No. 4 respectively.

It is submitted by the appellants that ITD System reflects that a payment of Rs. 15,38,975/- had been received in its bank accounts and a liability of

more than Rs. 1,00,000/- had been escaped. Further, the respondent company had not filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 and the reasons for

issue of Notice u/s 148 of escapement of income from tax for the Assessment Year 2012-13, were recorded by the Assessing Officer, which has

been annexed herein.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 6 after noting the observations of the Ld. Assessing Officer gave its approval for re-opening the case

of the Assessee, as there is escapement of income from assessment. Thereafter, notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, dated 19.03.2019 was

issued. The said notice was never replied to by the Directors nor by any other representative of the company.

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 more than Rs. 1,00,000/-. 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 has appeared.

Thereafter, vide order dated 30.10.2019 and assessment order was passed against respondent no. 2 company, for the financial year 2012-13 .

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.

18837) whereby name of 24280 companies have been struck off w.e.f. 08.08.2018 from the 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 Assessing Officer 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 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.

The respondents were served with appeal and service affidavit has been filed. There respondent were served through publication in one English

and one vernacular newspaper vide publication dated 12.11.2019 and the respondents No. 2 to 4 have been proceeded ex parte vide order dated

14.01.2020.

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.