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

This Petition has been filed by Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred as ""Appellant"") invoking the provisions of Section 252 (1) R/w Section

252 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013 for restoration of the name of the Respondent No. 2, vizSwitz Infotech Pvt. Ltd, (hereinafter referred as

Respondent No.2"") in the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies (hereinafter referred as ""RoC""), herein the Respondent

No.l.

Service was duly affected on the Respondents through all modes and substituted service was also done on Respondents No. 2 - 4 which is held

sufficient, but none appeared. The Assessment Order and the Penalty Order are placed on Record. As seen from records vide Order dated

11.12.2020 the Respondents were proceeded Ex-Parte.

The Respondent no. 2 is a private company limited by shares and was incorporated on 16.03.2013 and as per the company master data the status of

the Respondent No.2 is active non-compliant. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs initiated proceedings through the office of the RoC and several

names of Companies were struck off for want of statutory filings. The name of the Respondent No.2 was also struck off from the Register of

Companies on non-filing of any Returns or Financial Statements vide STK-7 dated 29.10.2019.

The provisions of Section 252 (1) R/w Section 252 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013, have been invoke by the Appellant, to seek restoration of the

name of the Respondent No.2, to carry out proceedings initiated against the Respondent No.2. As per the averments made by the Income Tax

Department it appears that the Respondent No.2 has made cash transactions between the period of 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016, amounting to total cash

deposit of Rs. 18,77,500/- in its Account Number 01505500606 with ICICI Bank Limited. Further, it was observed that the said account was credited

with Rs. 90,84,084/- apart from the above cash deposit.

Therefore, the Appellant has reason to believe that undisclosed income as is mentioned in para 4, has escaped assessment during A.Y. 2017-18 due

to huge cash deposit in bank account of the Respondent No. 2 as mentioned above and the Respondent No.2 has not filed Income Tax Return for the

A.Y. 2017-18 despite having made the huge cash deposit in the bank account.

It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel that a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 13.02.2018 was sent to the Respondent

No. 2 calling upon to prepare a true and correct return of its income for the AY. 2017.2018. Further, Notices dated 26.06.2019 and 04.09.2019 under

Section 142(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were also issued to the Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 2 filed to respond to earlier notices

therefore, a show-cause notice dated 07.11.2019 under Section 274 R/w Section 272 (A) (1) (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the

Respondent No.2.

It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that after following the due process, a Penalty Oder dated 14.11.2019 under Section 274 R/w Section 272

A (1) (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- upon the Respondent No.2. The necessary demand notice dated

14.11.2019 under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was also issued to the Respondent No.2. Assessment Order was passed on 11.12.2019

under Section 144 r/w Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the Respondent No. 2, this resulted in raising the income tax demand of Rs.

1,35,44,901/- against the Respondent No. 2. A demand notice dated 11.12.2019 under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the

Respondent No. 2

In the meanwhile, in December 2019, the Income Tax Department came to know that the name of the Respondent No.2 has been ""Struck Off' by

the Registrar of Companies vide STK- 7 dated 29.10.2019.

The Ld. Counsel for the Income Tax submits that the aforesaid facts necessitate restoration of the name of the Respondent No. 2 in the Register of

Companies to proceed further in accordance with law. In view of the grounds raised by the Appellant, being an aggrieved person, the prayer can be

entertained u/s 252(1) read with Section 252(3) of the Code.

Based on the facts and circumstances the Petition is allowed. The RoC is directed to restore the name of the Respondent No.2 in the Register of

companies and proceed to take such other and further penal action against the Respondent No. 2 in accordance with the statutory provisions.

We, however, make it clear that this Bench has only directed restoration of the name of the Respondent No. 2 in the Register of Companies

maintained by the RoC based on averments made in the petition and have in no way endorsed or adjudicated about the Appellant's entitlement to

recover any tax etc. which shall be adjudicated by the concerned Department subject to the laws of limitation governing such recoveries. Charges

involved in seeking restoration of the company's name with the office of the ROC shall be borne by the Appellant.

Appeal is disposed of in terms of the above. The Ld. Counsel for The Appellant shall obtain a certified copy of this Order to submit before the

concerned ROC for compliance.