Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(2), New Delhi vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

This appeal is filed byIncome Tax Department throughIncome Tax OfficerWard-6(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 Colors Marketing Pvt. Ltd.,having its registered office at 808/3 & 4, Sukhdev Market, KotlaMubarakpur (Near

DefenceColony Red Light) New Delhi, South Delhi- 110003, bearing CIN U74900 DL2009 PTC193630,Mr.Kapil Kumarrespondent no. 3 is director

of the company.

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

Individual Transaction Statement (ITS) and 26AS, it is observed that during the A.Y. 2012-13, the respondent no. 2 company has received non-cash

credits to the extent of Rs. 1,08,04,433/- in its bank account with Axis Bank. Further, the respondent no. 2 company had received cash credits of Rs.

7,50,000/- in its bank account with Axis Bank and Rs. 58,64,500/- in its bank account with ICICI Bank. Apart from that the respondent-company had

made cash deposit of Rs. 7,00,000/- in its bank account No.630005008621 maintained by it with ICICI Bank, thus, there has been total credits in bank

accounts of the company to the tune of Rs. 1,81,18,933/-.As per the IT system, the respondent did not file its ITR, for A.Y. 2012-13, and did not

disclose material facts necessary for assessment. The appellant has reason to believe that estimated amount of Rs.1,81,18,933/- 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. 1,81,18,933/-. 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- 2,notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, dated 27.03.2019 was issued. The said

notice was never replied to, by the directors nor by any other representative of the Company.

The Assessment Order was passeddated 11.12.2019 and further Penalty Order was also passed, against respondent no. 2 company, for the A.Y.

2012-13 .

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-5/721 dated 27.04.2017. Consequently, Appellant’s name

was struck off vide notice bearing No. ROC/DELHI/248(5)/STK- 7/2879 dated on 30.06.2017 (Company’s name appearing at Sl. No. 4030)

whereby name of 22864 companies have been struck off w.e.f. 07.06.2017 from the Registrar of Companies.

The respondents were served their publication and service affidavit is filed. The respondents no. 2 and 3 were served through publication in one

English and one Vernacular newspaper vide publication dated 14.02.2020 and 15.02.2020.None appears for respondents no. 2 and 3. Hence,

respondents no. 2 and 3 are proceeded ex parte vide order dated 15.01.2021.

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.