Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2021) 02 NCLT CK 0034

Income Tax Officer, Ward1(1) vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 12 February 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Abni Ranjan Kumar Sinha, J · L.N. Gupta, Member (Technical)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Appeal No. 1048/252(ND) Of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

36 paragraphs · 666 words
1.

The present Appeal is preferred by the Income Tax Officer, Ward1(1), New Delhi under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 on being

aggrieved by the action of the Registrar of Companies (“RoCâ€) in striking off the name of M/s APJ Textile Private Limited (“the Companyâ€)

from the Register of Companies.

2.

It is stated by the Appellant that “the Company†is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 on

19.12.2005 with CIN No. U17111DL2005PTC143831. The Authorised Share capital of the Company is Rs.10,00,000 and the Paid-up Share capital of

the Company is Rs.1,00,000. The registered Office of the Company is at Z-1, 129 Timber Market, Welcome Colony III, New Delhi, East Delhi-

110053. Therefore, the jurisdiction lies with this Tribunal.

3.

The Appellant in its appeal has averred that:

“5.5 As the Respondent did not file its ITR and did not disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, apparently, an

estimated amount of at least Rs. 30,60,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147/148 of the IT Act and has not been

brought under tax for the A.Y. 2011-12.

5.6 Thus, the Appellant has reason to believe that undisclosed income as mentioned above has escaped assessment during A.Y. 2011-12,

because the Respondent did not disclose fully and truly all material facts to enable assessment, not filed its ITR, thereby rendering the

company liable for consequences under Income Tax Act, 1961 and entitling the Revenue to initiate proceedings against the company. Thus,

prima facie, there appears tax evasion which requires action in accordance with law….â€​

4.

It is submitted by the Appellant that it had issued a notice dated 30.03.2018 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 to the Company under Section

147/148 of the IT Act for assessment, re-assessement, or re-computation of income escaping assessment of tax.

5.

It is stated by the Appellant that during the Assessment Year proceedings for A.Y 2011-12, the Appellant came to know that the Company has

been struck off from the Register of Companies by RoC at Sl. No 73 vide STK-7 Notice No.ROC-DEL-248(5)/STK-7/2879 dated 30.06.2017.

6.

The Appellant contends that in order to frame the Assessment order and take appropriate and effective steps for recovery of taxes and for any

further consequential proceedings, there is a need of restoration of the Company, viz., M/s APJ Textile Private Limited in the Register of Companies.

7.

That the Appellant has filed its Affidavit of Service dated 01.04.2019, wherein it is stated that the service of Notice on the Respondent Company

and its Directors/Respondents was effected through publication in the newspapers namely, Business Standard (English) and Jansatta (Hindi) on

29.03.2019. Considering the fact that the notice was served upon the Respondents and none was present, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order

dated 01.05.2019 of this Tribunal.

8.

The Respondent No.1 i.e., ROC did not file reply despite opportunities. During the course of hearing on 01.02.2021, AROC submitted that ROC

has no objection to the revival of the Respondent Company.

9.

It is observed that the Income Tax Department is an aggrieved party within the meaning of Section 252(1) read with 252(3) of the Companies Act,

2013 as it has to recover Income Tax/duties/cess payable by the Respondent Company and great prejudice will be caused to its revenues, if the name

of the Company is not restored back to the Register of the Companies.

10.

Accordingly, in sequel to the above, we consider it to be just and equitable to allow restoration of the Company and allow the Appeal. The

Registrar of Companies, is directed to restore the name of the Company namely, M/s APJ Textile Private Limited. in its Register, as if the name of

the Company had not been struck off. ROC is also directed to take any other penal action against the other Respondents for default, if any, in

accordance with the statutory provisions.

11.

The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

12.

Let the copy of Order be supplied to the parties.