Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(2), New Delhi vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

This appeal is filed by Income Tax Department through Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(2), 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 Techfaima Projects Private Limited, having its registered office at B-1, Brijpuri Extension, Parwana Road, Delhi, East

Delhi- 110051, bearing CIN U74999 DL2007 PTC160990. Mr. Manish Kumar and Mr. Faisel Tufel are Respondents No. 3 and 4 who are Directors

of the Company.

It is submitted that the information available with the Revenue through NMS/ITD Software, information from AIR/CIB Statements and Individual

Transaction Statements (ITS) and 26AS, it is observed that during the A.Y. 2010-11, the Respondent Company has received contractual

receipts/Commission or Brokerage/Fee for Professional or Technical Services all amounting to Rs. 8,36,883/-, from different parties on which TDS

under Section 194C, 194H and 194J had been deducted.

It is submitted that the Information available with the Revenue through NMS/ITD Software, information from AIR/CIB Statements and Individual

Transaction Statements (ITS) and 26AS, it is observed that during the A.Y. 2012-13, the Respondent Company has received contractual receipts

amounting to Rs. 4,37,018/- from M/s Tower Vision India Pvt. Ltd., on which TDS had been deducted under Section 194C of IT Act. As per the IT

system, the respondent did not file its ITR for A.Y. 2011-12, and did not disclose material facts necessary for assessment. The appellant believed that

estimated amount of Rs. 4,37,018/- has escaped the assessment.

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 Rs. 8,36,883/- and Rs. 4,37,018/-. Denial to restore the name of the

respondent company in the Register of the ROC, will be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in the long run.

After approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 6, notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, dated 29.03.2019 was issued. The said

notice was never replied to, by the Directors nor by any other representative of the company.

The Assessment Orders were passed dated 27.11.2017 and 13.11.2019 and further penalty orders were also passed against Respondent No. 2

Company.

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-5/2336 dated 13.06.2017. Consequently, Appellant’s name

was struck off vide notice bearing No. ROC/DELHI/248(5)/STK-7/5071 dated on 01.09.2017 (Company’s name appearing at Sl. No. 22348)

whereby name of 24945 companies have been struck off w.e.f. 21.08.2017 from the Registrar of Companies.

The respondents were served with appeal and service affidavit is filed. The Respondents no. 2 to 4 were served through publication in one English

and one vernacular newspaper vide publication dated 12.11.2019. None appeared for Respondents No. 2 to 4, hence they have been proceeded ex

parte vide order dated 25.02.2020.

The appellant submitted that the Income Tax Department being aggrieved person and also creditor under Section 252(1) and 252(3) 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.

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.