Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1) vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors

Hemant Kumar Sarangi, Member (T)

The appeal is filed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward - 9(1), New Delhi, against the striking off of the name of the M/s. Fair 'N' Square Export Private Limited ("the company"), from the register of companies.

It is stated that the company is a private limited company incorporated under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956, on 28.07.1989 having CIN No. U51909 DL1989 PTC037147 with Authorized capital Rs. 1,00,000/- and paid up capital of Rs. 10,000/-. The registered office of the company is stated to be at A-24, Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi - 110027. Therefore, the jurisdiction lies with this Tribunal.

The Appellant submits, that the case of M/s. Fair 'N' Square Export 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 1999-2000 to 2004-05 and did not disclose fully and truly all material particulars and Income Tax dues to the tune of Rs, 24,88,25,970/- and income of the respondent company has escaped assessment for A. Y. 1999-2000 to 2004-05, thereby rendering the company liable for consequences under Income Tax Act, 1961 and entitling the Revenue to initiate proceedings against the company,

It is submitted that vide notice dated 13.06.2017 being Public Notice No. ROC-DEL/248/STK-5/2336 in Form STK-5, the Registrar of Companies (ROC) had sought explanation from the company as to why its name should not be struck off from the register of companies, on account of not carrying on any business or operation for a period of two immediately preceding financial years and having not made any application within such period for obtaining the status of a dormant company under section 455 of the Companies Act, 2013.

The Appellant has stated that, it is not known whether M/s. Fair TT Square Export Private Limited made any representation to the ROC in pursuance of the STK-5; 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 vide notice dated 01.09.2017 being Public Notice No. ROC-DEL/248(5)/STK-7/5071 in Form STK-7 (Company's name appearing at SL No. 6417) 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 has been assailed by the Appellant on the ground that the assessment / reassessment was to result in an addition of nearly Rs. 24,88,25,970/- to the income of the Company.

The Appellant further states that, Assessment Order dated 30.11.2006, 27.12.2007, 30.12.2008, 21.12.2009, 28.10.2010 and 03.10.2011 has since been passed under section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which has resulted in creation of demand of totaling to Rs. 15,79,45,375/- 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 Orders alongwith Demand Notices has been annexed with the appeal. Penalty Orders alongwith Demand Notices under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) imposing a penalty for an amount totaling to Rs. 9,08,80,595/- were issued. Copies of penalty orders along with demand notices have been annexed with the appeal.

The Appellant has filed its affidavit of service on 18.11.2019, it has been stated that service has been affected on Respondents Company and its directors through Publication in English newspaper "Financial Express", Delhi edition dated 12.11.2019 and the name of the Respondent Company and its Directors was appearing at Serial No. 08 on Page No. 23. The publication was also done in Hindi newspaper "Jansatta", Delhi edition dated 12.11.2019 and the name of the Respondent Company and its Directors was appearing at Serial No. 08 on Page No. 05. Copy of newspapers has been annexed along with the affidavit.

The Income Tax Department is an aggrieved party within the meaning of section 252(1)(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.