Dr. Deepti Mukesh, J
1. This appeal is filed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, through its income tax office Jata Shankar Meena, Central Circle-26, New Delhi
(for brevity the 'appellant'), under Section 252(1) r/w Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 (for brevity 'the Act') read with Rule 7 & 9 of
Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016 by Registrar of Companies, the respondent herein.
2. The Respondent No. 1 is the Registrar of companies NCT of Delhi and Haryana, the ROC in terms of provision of Section 248(1) of the
Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 7 and Rule 9 of the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016
had struck off the name of the company from its register.
3. The respondent No.2 is a company incorporated under the provision of Companies Act, 2013 on 24.05.2005, as a Private Limited Company with the
Registrar of Companies, Delhi having its registered office at 333-A, 2nd Floor, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi - 110065, bearing CIN
U74140DL2005PTC136537. The Authorized share capital of the Company is Rs. 25,00,000/- and issued, subscribed and paid up share capital of the
Company is Rs. 20,00,000/-. The last AGM was held on 30.09.2015 and the last balance sheet filed is upto the year ending 2015.
4. The applicant submits that on 17.12.2015 a search and seizure operation was carried out on Sh. Anand Kumar Jain and Sh. Naresh Kumar Jain of
Jain Brothers, who are engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries. Jain brothers had created a folder in the Tally Software, with
name of the company as ""JAIN"" for recording the details of the accommodation entries being provided by them to various persons including Ms.
Gomati Consultants Pvt. Ltd. During the search operation large number of incriminating documents /material including electronic data was found and
seized which included the document pertaining to the respondent No.2 Company and further found that the respondent company was involved in the
accommodation entries with the shell companies of Jain Brothers.
5. Upon examining these seized documents and on analysis of the bank statements and electronic data seized, it is found that respondent company has
undertaken certain financial transactions with the shell companies of Jain Brothers. Further the said documents contain details of investment, income
and expenditure under various heads made by the assessee and has bearing on the determination of the total income of the respondent No. 2 for the
Assessment Year 2012-13 to 2017-18 within the meaning of Section 153C r/w Section 153A of the of the Act. Hence, a notice dated 28.03.2018 was
issued to respondent No.2.
6. As per the notice u/s 153A r/w Section 153A of Income tax Act dated 28.03.2018, the respondent No.2 is required to furnish within 15 days of
receipt of this notice, a return of income of M/s. Gomati Consultants Pvt. Ltd., for Assessment year 2012-13 to 2017-18 in the form prescribed in Rule
12(1) and in the manner prescribed in Rule 12(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1964 and verified in the manner prescribed in Section 140 of I.T. Act, 1961.
7. Further notices, have been issued on 29.10.2018 and 26.11.2018 under Section 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 to the Principal officer of the
respondent No.2 wherein the respondent is required to furnish the true and correct return of income in respect of which they are assessable with
regards the A.Y's 2012-13 to 2017-18. Thereafter, on 11.10.2018 notice has again been issued giving another opportunity to the respondent to furnish
the information within prescribed period of time.
8. The appellant has submitted that:
a) The assessment order for the A.Y. 2012-13, passed under Section 153C r/s Sec 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the demand notice dated 26.12.2018
has created a demand of Rs. 12,88,924/-. The respondent company has concealed the true particulars of its income, hence notice dated 26.12.2018
under Section 274 r/w Section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961, has been issued, to initiate penalty proceedings.
b) The assessment order for the A.Y. 2013-14, passed under Section 153C r/s Sec 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and demand notice under Section 156 of
the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 26.12.2018 has created a demand of Rs. 99,42,519/-. The respondent company has concealed the true particulars of its
income, hence notice dated 26.12.2018 under Section 274 r/w Section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961, has been issued, to initiate penalty proceedings.
c) The assessment order for the A.Y. 2014-15, passed under Section 153C r/s Sec 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and demand notice under Section 156 of
the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 26.12.2018 has created a demand of Rs. 8,66,01,551/-. The respondent company has concealed the true particulars of its
income, hence notice dated 26.12.2018 under Section 274 r/w Section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961, has been issued, to initiate penalty proceedings.
d) The assessment order for the A.Y. 2015-16, passed under Section 153C r/s Sec 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and demand notice under Section 156 of
the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 26.12.2018 has created a demand of Rs. 11,20,53,656/-. The respondent company has concealed the true particulars of its
income, hence notice dated 26.12.2018 under Section 274 r/w Section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961, has been issued, to initiate penalty proceedings.
e) The assessment order for the A.Y. 2016-17, passed under Section 153C r/s Sec 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and demand notice under Section 156 of
the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 26.12.2018 has created a demand of Rs. 8,22,04795/-. The respondent company has concealed the true particulars of its
income, hence notice dated 26.12.2018 under Section 274 r/w Section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961, has been issued, to initiate penalty proceedings.
f) The assessment order for the A.Y. 2017-18, passed under Section 153C r/s Sec 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and demand notice under Section 156 of
the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 26.12.2018 has created a demand of Rs. 9,15,35,426/-. The respondent company has concealed the true particulars of its
income, hence notice dated 26.12.2018 under Section 274 r/w Section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961, has been issued, to initiate penalty proceedings.
9. The appellant further submitted that the respondent company did not present the true particulars of its income which is determined under Section 69,
69A, 69B, 69C or 69D of I.T. Act 1961, Penalty proceeding for the A.Y 2017-18 under Section 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had been
initiated. Hence, notice dated 26.12.2018 was issued.
10. Thereafter, on 26.12.2018 notice was issued in pursuance of penalty proceeding under Section 271F had been initiated as the respondent company
failed to furnish its return of income as required under Section 139(1) of I.T. Act, 1961 for A.Y 2017-18.
11. On perusal of the MCA website, that appellant has come to know that the the name of the respondent company was struck off from its Register
by the Registrar of Companies.
12. It is submitted that the re-assessment proceeding for the A.Y. 2012-13 to 2017-18 are pending and getting time barred on 31.12.2018 as per the
provisions of Section 153(1)B of the I.T. Act, 1961.
13. The appellant submitted that for framing the assessment, for recovery of taxes and for initiating of further proceedings against the respondent
company under the I.T. Act 1961, it is essential that the name of respondent company be restored as if it were never been struck off from the
Register of ROC.
14. The Income Tax department being aggrieved under the Section 252(1) read with Section 252(3) of the companies Act 2013, as it has to recover
taxes payable by the respondent company and great prejudice will be caused to revenue if the name of respondent company is not restored on MCA
portal. The service on respondents no.2 to 4 is made through publication in newspapers, as active but none have appeared. Hence, the respondent's
No. 2 to 4 are proceeded ex-parte, on 07.11.2019.
15. In the above circumstances, in the interest of safeguarding the recovery interest of revenue department this appeal is allowed. The Registrar of
company is directed to restore the company's name in their Register and also proceed to take such other and further penal action against the
respondents in accordance with statutory provisions.
16. The name of the Respondent No.2 Company shall then, as a consequence, stand restored to the Register of the Registrar of Companies, as if the
name of the company had not been struck off in accordance with Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013.
17. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
18. Let the copy of the order be served to the parties.
