AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sumita Purkayastha, Member (T)
This petition has been filed by Income Tax Authority invoking the provisions of Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 for restoration of the name of the Respondent No. 2 company, viz UNIQUE CONBUILD PRIVATE LIMITED, in the Register of Companies maintained by the RoC, Respondent No. 1.
Other than the RoC, none appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2 to 4 to oppose the prayer made by the petitioner, hence are proceeded ex-parte. Respondent No. 1 the RoC submits that they have no objections to the prayer of the petitioner being granted by this bench.
Vide Proceedings initiated by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, through the office of the RoC, names of several companies were struck off for want of filing Statutory Returns.
Respondent No. 2 company, which had not filed any Return or Financial Statement, was duly struck off from the Register of Companies vide STK-7 dated 30.06.2017.
Invoking the provision of section 252 of the Act, the Income Tax Dept. prays for its restoration in order to carry out proceedings initiated against them. As per averments, in the information available with the Income Tax Department it is observed that The Respondent Company had filed its last balance sheet for the year ended up-to 31.03.2013. Consequent to the search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 11.04.2011 in the R.S. Bansal Group of cases and seizure from the said premises documents/bills belonging to the Respondent Company, Block Assessment proceedings covering the A.Y. 2006-07 to 2011-12 were initiated vide Notice under Section 152C read with Section 153A of the I.T. Act.
Further the Appellant as per the provision of Section 144 read with Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, separate assessment orders dated 28.03.2014 raising tax demand as mentioned below:
A.Y. 2006-07
Rs. 75,35,633/-
A.Y. 2007-08
Rs. 71,060/-
A.Y. 2008-09
Rs. 2,10,10,710/-
A.Y. 2009-10
Rs. 7,06,50,004/-
A.Y. 2010-11
Rs. 9,49,27,896/-
A.Y. 2011-12
Rs. 4,04,38,261/-
TOTAL
Rs. 23,46,33,604/-
Demand Notice dated 28.03.2014 under Section 156 of the I.T Act were also sent to the Respondent Company. As the Respondent Company had violated several provisions of the Income Tax Act, penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for the aforesaid six Assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12 and after following due process, the Appellant passed separate Penalty Order dated 24.09.2014 for all the assessment years, imposing penalty under Section 271(1) (c ) of the I.T. Act as mentioned below:
A.Y. 2006-07
Rs. 37,86,750/-
A.Y. 2007-08
Rs. 38,000/-
A.Y. 2008-09
Rs. 1,20,06,120/-
A.Y. 2009-10
Rs. 4,31,62,722/-
A.Y. 2010-11
Rs. 6,28,66,156/-
A.Y. 2011-12
Rs. 2,91,02,433/-
TOTAL
Rs. 15,09,62,181/-
As it was noticed that in certain Assessment Years, interest under Section 234B of the I.T. Act has been charged in excess, necessary rectification of the mistake apparent from the record was carried out under Section 154 of the I.T. Act and separate order for each of the Assessment Year concerned was passed on 08.08.2015 as mentioned below:
A.Y. 2008-09
Rs. (-) 14,76,401/-
A.Y. 2009-10
Rs. (-) 94,49,596/-
A.Y. 2010-11
Rs. (-) 75,73,037/-
A.Y. 2011-12
Rs. (-) 26,18,305/-
TOTAL
Rs. (-) 2,11,17,339/-
The aforesaid tax demands after giving effect to the rectification totaling to Rs. 36,44,78,446/- for the Assessment Year 2006-2007 to 2011-12 are still outstanding against the Respondent Company.
Ld. Standing Counsel for the IT dept. submits that in order to enable the Appellant to take appropriate steps for the recovery of taxes and for any further consequential proceedings, the Respondent Company's name has to be restored. In view of the grounds raised by the applicant, being an aggrieved person, the prayer can be entertained u/s 252(3) of the Code.
The petition is therefore allowed. The RoC 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 respondents in accordance with the statutory provisions.
We however make it clear that this Bench has only directed restoration of the name of the appellant company in the Register of Companies maintained by the ROC on the basis of averment made in the petition and in no way endorse or have adjudicated about their entitlement to recover which shall be adjudicated by the 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 applicant. Petition is disposed off in terms of the above. Compliance be made with the RoC within 30 days.