AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
13.02.2025: This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated 21.10.2024 passed by the Ld. NCLT in Company Appeal No. 374/252/ND/2020.
Admittedly, the company’s name was struck of vide an order dated 30.06.2017 by the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana. The said order is annexed as Annexure-P2 in this appeal. The appeal was filed by the Respondent herein/Income Tax Department invoking Section 252(1) read with Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, for restoration of the name of the Appellant company, M/s. Topline Comtech Pvt. Ltd., in the register of Registrar of Companies, as maintained by Respondent No. 2 herein.
The impugned order was passed on the premise there being recoveries/outstanding demand of Rs. 6,69,910/- against the Appellant company, calculated for the assessment year 2012-13 and a demand notice dated 30.11.2019 was also sent for such assessment year 2012-13.
It was contention of the Income Tax Department if the name of the Appellant company is not restored, it shall seriously affect the recovery of tax liabilities of the Appellant company.
The grievance of the Appellants is without giving them any opportunity of being heard, the said appeal Company Appeal No. 374/252/ND/2020 was allowed by the impugned order. However, on perusal of the impugned order, we find para 8 records the appellants despite notice and paper publication have not appeared before the Ld. NCLT. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant though has shown us two orders dated 08.12.2023 and 08.04.2024 which records the reply was filed by the Appellants herein and rather a date was given to the Income Tax Department to file its rejoinder, but admittedly the presence of the Appellant’s Counsel was not recorded in both these orders. In any case, we have also perused the reply filed by the Respondents No. 2 to 4 before the Ld. NCLT to the appeal filed by the department, wherein they had not denied assessment order and demand notice but claimed it being beyond limitation.
Thus, in these circumstances, where the appellants failed to appear and did not dispute raising of such alleged demand, we see no reason why impugned order be set aside. Lastly it was argued by the appellants they were present on dates but their presence was inadvertently not recorded by the Ld. NCLT. We disagree as there exists a presumption of correctness of orders passed.
In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed. All pending application(s) are disposed of.