Dr. Deepti Mukesh, J
1. This appeal is filed by Income Tax Department, through its Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 2(3) C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi, under
Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 (for brevity ‘the Act’) against the order of striking off the name of the company AMS Powertronic
Private Limited (for brevity ‘the Company’) passed by the respondent under section 248 (1) of the Act read with Rule 7 of Companies
(Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016 published on 08.08.2018 vide notification no. ROC-
DELHI/248(5)/STK-7/4865 by Registrar of Companies, the respondent herein.
2. The company is incorporated as a Private Limited Company under the provision of Companies Act, 1956 with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of
Delhi and Haryana on 20.07.2004 having CIN U31104DL2004PTC127710. The company is having registered office at 405, ABC Complex 20 Veer
Saverka Block Delhi-110092. The Authorized share capital of the Company is Rs.10,00,000/- and issued, subscribed and paid up share capital of the
Company is Rs.10,00,000/-.
3. As per the notice of non- compliance of provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 in respect to filing of annual returns and financial statements since
incorporation from 2014 onwards, the name of the company was struck off 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.
4. The Appellant has submitted that service was duly effected on the respondents. Other than the Registrar of companies, none appeared on behalf of
the company or ex-directors. Hence Respondent No. 2 to 4 were proceeded ex-parte, Respondent No.1, Registrar of companies submits that they
have no objections to the prayer of the applicant being granted by this bench.
5. The Appellant prays for the restoration of Respondent No. 2 company in order to take forward proceedings initiated against the company. As per
averments by the appellant, received by the Income Tax department through NMS/ITD software, , it is observed that the respondent company has
made cash transactions between the period 9th November 2016 to 30th December 2016 and made total cash deposits of Rs 12,00,000/- in its account
with Bank of Maharashtra, Sector-56, Gurgaon. It is also submitted that huge high value transfer and RTGS credits were observed followed by high
value RTGS and transfer debits in the bank account of the respondent company. It was also informed that on 30.03.2012 the company had purchased
gold worth Rs 6,30,000/- and the that transactions were done by the company with companies having varied lines of business.
6. It is submitted that on examination of the information received from the Investigation Wing with the ITR filed by the respondent company, revealed
that while the company has declared NIL income for the A.Y. 2012-13, the total credits in its bank account was to the tune of Rs 8,56,51,541/-
7. The Appellant has further submitted that it appears that there is tax evasion which has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 &
148 of the Income Tax Act and action in accordance with law is required to be initiated against the company. Notice dated 30.03.2019 under section
148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the respondent, to which there is no response from the Respondents being the company and its ex-
directors. The assessment order for assessment year 2012-13, dated 17.12.2019 was also issued on the respondent which is at Annexure -A1, to
which no response was ever received.
8. The Appellant has further submitted that a notice added 15.03.208 under section 142(1)(i) (Inquiry Before Assessment) of the Income Tax Act
was issued to the respondent company calling the company to prepare a true and correct return of its income in respect of A.Y 2017-18. The said
proceeding is also pending therein.
9. The Ld. Counsel for the Income Tax submits that in order to enable the income tax department to recover the taxes on the undisclosed income, of
the company and to charge and recover the revenue from the transactions of the company during the year 2012-13, if any, it necessitates restoration
of the Respondent No. 2 Company in the Register of Companies as maintained by ROC to proceed further in accordance with law. As on date the
proceedings cannot continue against the company, for it being struck off and the said revenue cannot be recovered.
10. It is the case of appellant that the Income Tax Department is an aggrieved party within the meaning of section 252(1) and also a creditor under
252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 as it has to recover taxes payables by company and great prejudice will be caused to revenue if the name of the
company is not restored back. Hence appeal deserves to be allowed.
11. In above circumstances, this appeal deserves to be allowed and the Registrar of companies 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 respondents in accordance with the statutory provisions. The name
of the Appellant 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.
12. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
13. Let the copy of the order be served to the parties.
