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

Dr. Deepti Mukesh, J

The appeal is filed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward â€" 4(4), New Delhi, against the striking off of the name of the M/s Bhoomi Developwell

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

It is stated that, the company is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, on 14.08,1989 having CIN No. U70200

DL2012 PTC229762 with Authorized capital Rs. 5,00,000/- and paid up capital of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The registered office of the company is stated to be

at 80, Taimoor Nagar, Near New Friends Colony, New Delhi â€" 110025. Therefore, the jurisdiction lies with this Tribunal.

The Appellant states that, as per the Information available through NMS/ITD Software, information from AIR/CIB Statements and Individual

Transaction Statement (ITS) and 26AS, it is observed that during the financial year 2011-12 relevant to A. Y. 2012-13, the Respondent Company has

received contractual receipts amounting to Rs. 12,63,399/- from M/s Paramount Vilas Pvt. Ltd., on which TDS of Rs. 25,268/- had been deducted

under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act.

The Appellant submits that the case of M/s Bhoomi Developwell Private Limited was identified by the Non-Filer Monitoring System (NMS) as the

company had not filed its Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2012-13 and did not disclose fully and truly all material particulars. The

Assessing Officer had reasons to believe that an estimated amount of at least Rs. 12,63,399/- has not been brought under tax and income of the

respondent company has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2012-13, thereby rendering the company liable for consequences under Income Tax Act, 1961

and entitling the Revenue to initiate proceedings against the company.

It is further stated by the Appellant, that the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961, dated 27.03.2019 was issued to M/s Bhoomi

Developwell Private Limited and that assessment / reassessment proceedings so initiated were getting barred by limitation on 31.12.2019.

Appellant has submitted that vide Public Notice no. ROC-DEL/248/STK-5/721 was issued on 27.04.2017 in Form â€" 5 by the Registrar of

Companies (ROC). 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, vide notice dated 30.06.2017 being Public Notice no. ROC-DEL/248(5)/STK-

7/2879 in Form STK-7 (Company’s name appearing at Sl. No. 260). 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 to result in an addition of Rs. 12,63,399/- in

the Taxable Income of Company.

The Appellant further states that, Assessment Order dated 28.11.2019 has since been passed under section 144 / 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,

which has resulted in creation of demand of Rs. 1,44,700/- which was required to be paid within 30 days, failing which consequences were to follow in

accordance with provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. Copy of the assessment order alongwith Demand Notice has been annexed with the appeal,

therefore, Penalty Notices dated 28.11.2019 under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) and 271F were issued, which are also annexed.

The Appellant has filed its affidavit of service on 18.11.2019, wherein it states that service through publication was effected on the Respondent

Company and its directors in pursuance of the order of this Tribunal. It is further stated that in spite of, proper service to the respondent nos. 2 to 5,

none appeared. Hence, the case was proceeded ex-parte against the said Respondents vide order dated 07.01.2020. Affidavit of services has been

filed.

The Income Tax Department is an aggrieved party within the meaning of section 252(1) and a creditor under Section 252(3) as it has to recover

taxes payable by respondent company and great prejudice will be caused to the Appellant 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 Respondent Company 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 never 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.