Income Tax officer, Ward 25(1), New Delhi vs ROC & Ors. (M/s. Tanika Finance and Leasing Pvt. Ltd)

Atul Chaturvedi, Member, (Technical)

This appeal has been filed by Income Tax Authority, invoking the provisions of Section 252(1) read with section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, for restoration of the name of the Respondent No. 2 Company, M/s Tanika Finance and Leasing Pvt. Ltd, in the Register of Companies, maintained by the Registrar of Companies (“ROC”), Respondent No.1.

Service of notice was duly effected on the Respondents, except the ROC none appeared on behalf of the other Respondents. Therefore, Respondent No 2-4 were set ex-parte vide order dated 07.01.2020. Thereafter, the Respondent’s moved an application bearing number CA-239/2021 for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 07.01.2020. However, CA-239/2021 was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 05.06.2023.

Therefore, the Respondent No. 2 to 4 are set ex-parte.

The name of the Respondent no. 2 was struck off from the register of companies on 30.06.2017 vide Form STK-7.

Invoking the provision of Section 252 of the Act, the Income-Tax Department prayed for its restoration in order to carry out proceedings initiated against Respondent No. 2. As per the Information collected and received by the Income Tax Department, the Income of the Respondent Company has escaped assessment for Assessment Year 2011-12. The Respondent Company has not filed their Income Tax Return. Proceedings were initiated against the Respondent Company and notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued against the Assesse/Respondent Company on 28.03.2018. Further, the following demands are also pending against the Respondent Company:

S. NO

ASSESSMENT YEAR

AMOUNT OF DEMAND

NATURE OF DEMAND

1.

2009-10

26,26,500/-

SECTION 144/147

2.

2009-10

7,72,500/-

SECTION 271(1)(C)

As per the Grievance of the Income Tax Department, the name of the Respondent Company had been struck off by the ROC thus, seriously affecting the recovery of Respondent Company’s tax liabilities. Therefore, for recovering the tax dues and for any further consequential proceedings against the company under the Income Tax Act,1961, it is just and equitable and in public interest that the name of the Respondent Company be restored in the register of companies, as if the name of the company had not been struck off from the Register of Companies.

Ld. Counsel for the Income Tax submitted that the aforesaid facts necessitate restoration of the name of the Respondent Company 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, their prayer can be entertained u/s 252 of the Companies Act, 2013.

The Respondents despite notice and paper publication have not appeared before us and in view of the grounds raised by the Appellant, which remain unrebutted, the prayer of the Appellant merits consideration. The appeal is therefore allowed. The ROC is therefore directed to restore the name of Respondent 2, in its register and also proceed to take such other and further action against the Respondents 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 Company in the Register of Companies, maintained by the ROC, on the basis of averments made in the petition and have in no way endorsed or adjudicated about the Appellant’s entitlement to recover any amount as tax etc. which shall be adjudicated by the Department and the Appellate Authorities, subject to the laws of limitation governing such recoveries.

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the above. Compliance be made with the ROC within 30 days.