SAMRATHAL Buildvvell Pvt. Ltd. vs Registrar Of Companies

The erstwhile director of Samrathal Buildwell Private Limited bearing CIN NO: U45201DL2005PTC133843 has filed the present appeal, invoking

the provision of section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 for restoration of the name of the petitioner company in the register maintained by the

Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana.

As per the averments, by Samrathal Buildwell Private Limited, it was incorporated on 10.03.2005 having its registered office at House No. 28/2, E-

32, Gali No. 1, Jwala Nagar, Shandara, East Delhi- 110032, within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The main object of Company is"" To carry on the

business as owners, builders, colonizers, developers, promoters, proprietors, occupier, lessors- Contractors, maintainers and mortgagers of

residential, commercial and Industrial buildings colonies, mills and Factory's buildings, workshop's building, cinema's houses and deal in

all kinds of immovable properties whether belonging to company or not. "".

It is submitted by the appellant that a sweeping action was initiated by the ROC at the instance of MCA in striking of the names of several

Companies who had failed to file their Statutory Returns. The appellant had not filed its Annual Returns and balance sheet since the F.Y ended on

31.03.2016, thereby giving rise to the surmise that the business of the company was not in operation. Consequently, its name was struck off vide STK-

7 dated 08.08.2018 by the Respondent from the Register of Companies under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013, upon taking steps in

accordance with law and issuing a notification in the Official Gazette. The names of the effected companies was posted on its website.

The appellant has submitted that since its incorporation, the company is active and has been carrying on business of construction of residential

houses, commercial buildings, flats and factory sheds and building's in or outside of India and to act as builders, colonisers and civil constructional

contractor . The appellant has further submitted that the company has already in compliances of all laws like Income Tax Act, GST etc. However due

to the lack of Knowledge of the said provisions from the side of Professional associated with the Company, the appellant could not file the balance

sheet and annual return since the F.Y. ended on 31.03.2016 along with relevant documents with the ROC.

In order to sustain the plea for restoration, the petitioner have placed before us the following documents:

i. Copies of Auditor's Report and balance sheet for the financial year 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18.

ii. Copy of Income Tax returns for the F.Y 2018-19.

iii. Copy of Bank Statement from 03.01.2017 to26.04.2018 and 26.04.2018 to 28.11.2018.

The Income Tax Department has filed its reply on 10.04.2019 in which it has been submitted that no return filed for A.Y. 2017-18 by the appellant.

However Notice u/s 142(1) dated 11.01.2018 was issue to assessee but still no itr have been filed for the said year. In the same report the department

has also submitted that there are huge cash transactions made by assesse during period 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016. Also, the demand of Rs. 10,00,000/-

is outstanding against the assesse for A.Y. 2007-2008 u/s 143(1)A of Income Tax Act.

The aforesaid facts necessitate restoration of the name of the Company in the Register of Companies to proceed further in accordance with law as

there is pending liability to be paid to the Income Tax Department. Therefore it is in the interest of justice to restore the name of Company in the

Register of Companies.

The petition is therefore allowed. The ROC is directed to restore the name of the Petitioner Company in their 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 averment made in the petition. 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 off in terms of the above. Compliance be made with the ROC within 30 days.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund. The restoration of the petitioner

company's name in the Register will be subject to their filing all outstanding documents for the defaulting years as required by law and completion of

all formalities, including payment of any late fee or other charges which are leviable by the respondent for the late filing of statutory returns. The name

of the petitioner company shall then stand restored in the Register of the Registrar of Companies, as if the name of the company had not been struck

off in accordance with Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 with all consequential effects and benefits.

The direction for freezing the Bank Account(s) of the appellant company, if on this ground, shall consequently be also set aside immediately to

enable the company carry out its business operation. Compliance of this order for restoration shall be made by the respondent with all its consequential

effects within one week of compliance by the appellant.

The petition is disposed off accordingly.

Let the copy of the order be served to the parties.