Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2) vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

Hemant Kumar Sarangi, Member (T)

The appeal is filed By Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2) New Delhi, against the striking off of the name of the M/s Bansal Hospital And Research

Centre Private Limited (“the companyâ€​), from the register of companies.

It is stated that the company is a private limited company incorporated under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956, on 10.04.1992 having CIN No.

U74899DL1992PTC048305. Authorized capital Rs. 50,00,000/- and paid up capital of Rs. 3,58,500/-. The registered office of the company is stated to

be at 3579, Bazar Sita Ram, Hauz Qazi, New Delhi â€" 110006. Therefore, the jurisdiction lies with this Bench of the Tribunal.

The applicant submits, that the case of M/s Bansal Hospital And Research Centre Private Limited was identified by the Non-Filer Monitoring

System as the company had not filed its Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2011-12 and had received an amount aggregating to Rs.

7,45,523/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Three) towards fee for professional and technical services, during the

Financial Year 2010-2011 relevant for the A.Y. 2011-12. This receipt is clearly out of taxable income earned by the Assessee Company during the

year under consideration. However, as per the ITD system and records the Assessee has not filed any return of income for the year under

consideration till date.

It has further been stated by the appellant that, from e-filing records of Income Tax Department, the Respondent Company has not filed its ITR for

A.Y. 2011-12. As the Respondent Company did not file its ITR and did not disclose fully and truly all material particulars, the Assessing Officer has

reasons to believe that undisclosed income of Rs. 7,45,523/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Three) has escaped

assessment for A.Y. 2011-12, thereby rendering the company liable for consequences under Income Tax Act, 1961.

It is further stated by the applicant, that the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961, dated 28.03.2018 for A.Y. 2011-12 was issued to

M/s Bansal Hospital And Research Centre Private Limited and that assessment / reassessment proceedings so initiated were getting barred by

limitation on 31.12.2018.

The applicant has submitted that it is not known whether M/s Bansal Hospital And Research Centre Private Limited made any representation to the

ROC in pursuance of the STK-5 but it was found during the course of the assessment/reassessment proceedings that the name of the company was

struck off from the register of companies as per MCA master data of the company. The legality of the striking off the name of the company from the

register of the companies is sought to be assailed on the ground that the assessment/reassessment proceedings were likely to result in an addition of

nearly Rs. 7,45,523/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Three in the Taxable Income of the company.

The Appellant further submitted that Assessment Order has been passed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

which has resulted in creation of demand of Rs. 7,930/- which is required to be paid within 30 days, failing which consequences will follow in

accordance with provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. As the Respondent Company failed to furnish its return of income within stipulated time as

required under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 A. Y. 2011-12, therefor penalty order dated 05.03.2019 under section 271F has been

passed levying a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. Copy of penalty order along with demand notice dated 05.03.2019 under section 271F of the Income Tax Act,

1961 has been annexed along with the appeal.

The applicant has filed its affidavit of service, it has been stated that respondent no. 1 was served to the office of Registrar of Companies on

30.11.2018, respondent no. 2, 3 and 4 was served through speed post on 29.11.2018 on the registered address available on the MCA portal. Postal

receipts dated 29.11.2018 along with tracking report has been annexed along with the affidavit.

It is further submitted that reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2012-13 has also been initiated by issue of notice dated 27.03.2018 under section 148

of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Copy of the notice dated 27.03.2019 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has also been annexed with the

appeal.

The Ld. Counsel for the Income Tax submits that in order to recover the taxes on the undisclosed income of the respondent company and to

charge and recover the revenue from the transactions from the respondent company during the assessment year 2011-12, it necessitates restoration of

the Respondent Company in the Register of Companies to proceed further in accordance with law, since as on date the proceedings cannot continue

against the company, because of it being struck off from the register of companies.

The income tax department is an aggrieved party within the meaning of section 252(1) as it has to recover taxes payable by respondent company

and great prejudice will be caused to Revenue if the name of the respondent company is not restored back. In the 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 respondents 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 disposed of accordingly.

Let the copy of order be supplied to parties.