Income Tax Officer, Ward 24(4) vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors

Dr. Deepti Mukesh, J

This appeal is filed by Income Tax Department, through its Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 26(4), Central Revenue Building, 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 Visual

Learning Pvt. Ltd. (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-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 20.08.2009 having CIN-U80301DL2009PTC193400. The company is having registered office at Plot No. 422, Siraspur East

Delhi- 110042. The authorized share capital of the company is Rs. 2,00,000/-, and issued subscribed and paid up share capital of the company is Rs.

1,00,000/-.

As per the notice of non-compliance of provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 in respect to filing of annual returns and financial statements, 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. Hence, Respondent No. 2 to 4 were proceeded ex parte, on 08.01.2020. The learned AROC for 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, the Income Tax Department through NMS/ITD software, it is observed that Respondent Company has not filed its return

of income (ITR) for the A.Y. 2011-12, the respondent company has received payments, all amounting to Rs. 5,95,620/- from nine transactions with

Bright Scholar Senior Secondary School, which was not disclosed fully and truly. Fees for professional or Technical Services of the Income Tax Act.

The Appellant has further submitted that notice under Section 133(6) was sent to company, but no reply is received and 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. Notice dated 29.03.2019 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the respondent, to

which there is no response from the Respondents being the company and its ex-Directors. The assessment order for the assessment year 2011-12,

dated 31.10.2018 was also issued on the respondents which is at Annexure- A6, to which no response was ever received. Penalty proceedings under

Section 271F for non-filing of return in reply of notice under Section 148, under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of notice and under Section

271(1)(c) for concealment of income have been initiated separately.

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) and also a creditor under

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. Hence appeal deserves to be allowed.

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.