Income Tax Officer, Ward-22(4) vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

This appeal is filed by Income Tax Department, through its Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 22(4) C.R. 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 M/S Swadeshi

Infosystems 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 02.06.2008 having CIN U72200DL2008PTC178957.

The company is having registered office at 144, Tagore Garden, New Delhi-110027.

Authorized share capital of the Company is Rs.5,00,000/- divided into 50,000 equity shares of Rs.10/- each and issued, subscribed and paid up share

capital of the Company is Rs.5,00,000/- divided into 50,000 equity shares of Rs.10/- each.

As per the notice of non- compliance of provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 in respect to filing of annual returns and financial statements since

incorporation, 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 or other respondents. While 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

averments by the appellant, received by the Income Tax department, the respondent company had received payment under Section 194J (Fee

Towards Professional or Technical Services) and 194C (Contract Receipts) of the Income Tax Act total amounting to Rs. 8,12,937/- and also

received cash receipt exceeding Rs.10,00,000/- in a month, which has not been disclosed by the respondent 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 and action in accordance with law is required to be initiated against the company. It is submitted that assessment of

income of the Company for the Assessment Year 2011-12 is pending. Notice dated 31.03.2018 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was

issued to the respondent at its registered address as well as through affixation, to which there is no response from the Respondent No. 2 to 4 being the

company and its ex-directors. The company has not filed return against section 148 notice and hence the assessment permission was taken from

income tax commissioner with reasons served along with section 148 notice on the company.

The Ld. Counsel for the Income Tax submits that in order to enable the income tax department 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, if any, 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 deserves to be 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.