Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(1) vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

This appeal 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 M/s Edex Technology Pvt. Ltd. in the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies

(""RoC""), Respondent no. 1.

Service was duly effected on the Respondents. Other than the RoC, none appeared on behalf of the other Respondents to oppose the prayer made

by the Appellant therefore they were set ex-parte. The RoC submitted that they have no objections to the prayer of the Appellant being granted by

this Tribunal.

Vide Proceedings initiated by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, through the office of the RoC several names of companies were struck off for

want of statutory filing. Respondent No.2 company, which had also not filed any returns or financial statements was duly struck off from the register

of companies.

Invoking the provision of section 252 of the Act, the Income Tax Department prays for its restoration in order to carry out proceedings initiated

against Respondent 2. As per averments of the appellant; respondent company was incorporated on 13.02.1998 under Companies Act, 1956 with

Registrar of Companies, Delhi. The registered address of the Respondent Company, as per Company Master Data is shown at 487/88, No.2, First

Floor, Mangal Bazar Road, Near Sidh Baba Mandir, Peera Garhi, New Delhi-110087. The Authorized and Paid-up share capital is Rs.3,26,00,000/-

and Rs.3,25,95,150/- respectively. The Respondent Company had filed its last balance sheet for the year ended upto 31.03.2014.

The Income Tax Department has a system of collecting information from various sources mainly regarding bank deposits, investments in mutual

funds, shares, credit card expenditure, sale/ purchase of immovable property, deduction of tax at source by payers of amount, foreign remittances,

custom duties paid, service tax paid, other high value transactions etc. Such information is forwarded to jurisdictional Assessing Officer for taking

further necessary action in the cases in which information is received. The said information in the cases where the assessee has not filed its return of

income (ITR) is available in NMS (Non-filers Monitoring System) Module of Database maintained by Income Tax Department.

The Income Tax Department has further received information that the Respondent Company has an outstanding to the tune of Rs.1,50,43,643/-

pertaining to the A.Y.s 2010-11 to 2012-13 and 2014-15.

The Income Tax Department has further informed that the respondent company filed its Income Tax Return (ITR) for the A.Y. 2017-18 on

21.03.2018.

The Income Tax Return of the respondent company for the A.Y. 2017-18 has been selected for scrutiny assessment under Computer Aided

Scrutiny Selection (CASS) and a Notice dated 09.08.2018 has been issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act to the Respondent Company.

As per the CASS, the reason for scrutiny selection of the ITR of the Respondent Company is that the Respondent Company has shown low income in

comparison to high loans/advances/investments in shares appearing in the balance sheet. Further the expenses debited by the Respondent Company in

its P&L Account for earning exempt in as per schedule BP of ITR is significantly lower as compared to investments made to earn exempt income.

The assessment of income of the respondent company for A.Y. 2017-18 are pending and getting time barred by limitation on 31.12.2019 as per the

provisions of section 153 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

From the MCA Website, Revenue has come to know that the said respondent company has been ""struck off"" by ROC, vide Form STK-7 dated

29.10.2019.

The appellant submits that as per the provisions of Section 250 of Companies Act, 2013, despite ""Strike Off of the respondent company under

section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013, the company does not stand dissolved for the purpose of discharge of obligations of the company including

obligation to file return and get assessment. It is therefore; necessary for framing the assessment order, for recovering the taxes due and for any

further consequential proceedings that the Respondent 2's name be restored to the register maintained by the ROC.

In view of the grounds raised by the Appellant which remain un-rebutted, their prayer merits consideration. The appeal is therefore allowed. The

RoC is therefore directed to restore the name of Respondent no. 2 Company in its 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 averments made in the petition and have in no way endorsed or adjudicated about the Applicant's entitlement to

recover any amount as tax etc. 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 of in terms of

the above. Compliance be made with the ROC within 30 days.