AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kapal Kumar Vohra, Member (T)
This Appeal has been filed by Income Tax (IT) Authority invoking the provisions of Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 (The Act) for restoration of the name of the Respondent No. 1 Company (the Company), Moongipa Infosystems Ltd. in the Register of Companies (Register) maintained by the Registrar of Companies (RoC), Respondent No. 1.
Service was duly effected on the RoC. Service was effected upon Respondent through publication in Hindi newspaper 'Jansatta', Delhi edition dated 27.09.2019 (Company's name appears at Sr. No. 12) and English Newspaper 'Financial Express' Delhi edition dated 27.09.2019 (Company's name appears at Sr. No. 12). During the hearing, the Ld. ARoC appeared. None appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 1 to oppose the prayer made by the Appellant.
Ministry of Corporate Affairs, through the office of the RoC, had struck off names of several companies from Register for want of filing Statutory Returns. Name of the Company (Respondent No. 1), was duly struck off from the Register on 09.08.2018.
Invoking the provision of Section 252 of the Act, the IT Dept. prayed for the restoration of the name of the Company to the Register maintained by the RoC in order to effectively carry out tax proceedings initiated against the Company. As per averments, Company was incorporated on 17.05.1999 having a CIN No. U523 92DL 1999 PLCO 99789.
As per the data available with the IT Dept, it was observed that for the AY 2011-12, the Company had benefited from bogus long term capital gain entries of nearly Rs. 5,11,585. These entries had been procured from promoters of penny stock companies. It is noteworthy that the Assessee Company had filed it return of income of Rs. 62,088 for the relevant period. The Appellant thus has a reason to believe that an estimated amount of at least Rs. 5,11,585 chargeable to tax has escaped assessment entitling the Revenue to initiate proceedings against the Company effectively after restoration of Company's name in the Register.
It is submitted by the IT Dept. that for framing the assessment order, for recovering the tax dues and for any further consequential proceedings against the Company under the IT Act, it is just and equitable and in public interest that the name of the Respondent Company be restored to the Register as if the name of the Company had not been struck off from the Register. In view of the grounds raised by the Appellant, being an aggrieved person, the prayer can be entertained u/s 252 of the Act.
We have gone through the averments made in the memo of appeal filed by the Appellant, the reply by the RoC and the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant (IT Dept). We find that ARoC has not raised any objection. IT Dept. has argued that the Company has made bogus entry of Rs. 5,11,585 relating to capital gains and necessitating detailed enquiry, assessment, recovery and other consequential legal action after restoration the name of the Company to the Register. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and we hereby set aside the order dated 09.08.2018 of ARoC by which the name of the Company was struck off.
The RoC is directed to restore the name of the Company in their Register and also proceed to take such other and further penal action against the Respondent No. 1 in accordance with the statutory provisions if required.
We, however, make it clear that this Bench has only directed restoration of the name of the Company in the Register maintained by the RoC on the basis of averments made in the Appeal and in no way endorses IT Dept's entitlement to recover which shall be adjudicated by the IT Dept. subject to the laws of limitation and other laws governing such recoveries. Compliance be made with the RoC within 30 days.