Hemant Kumar Sarangi, Technical Member
1. The appeal is filed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre Circle – 24(2), New Delhi, against the striking off of the name of the M/s Srini Infrastrucuture Private Limited (“the company”), from the register of companies.
2. It is stated that, the company is a private limited company incorporated under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956, on 12.02.1999 having CIN No. U24231 DL1999 PTC098391 with Authorized capital Rs. 10,00,000/- and paid up capital of Rs. 1,00,200/-. The registered office of the company is stated to be at 329, NIRMAN APARTMENTS, MAYUR VIHAR PHASE – I, New Delhi – 110091. Therefore, the jurisdiction lies with this Tribunal.
3. The Appellant submits, that the case of M/s Srini Infrastructure Private Limited was identified by the Non-Filer Monitoring System (NMS) as the company had not filed its Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2011-12 and did not disclose fully and truly all material particulars, therefore, the Assessing Officer had reasons to believe that an estimated amount of at least Rs. 10,15,000/- has not been brought undertax and income of the respondent company has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2011-12, thereby rendering the company liable for consequences under Income Tax Act, 1961 and entitling the Revenue to initiate proceedings against the company.
4. It is submitted by the Appellant, that the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961, dated 29.03.2018 for A.Y. 2011-12, was issued to M/s Srini Infrastructure Private Limited and that assessment / reassessment proceedings so initiated were getting barred by limitation on 31.12.2018.
5. It is submitted that vide notice dated 18.06.2018 being Public Notice no. ROC-DEL/248/STK-5/2018/2912 in Form STK-5, the Registrar of Companies (ROC) had sought explanation from the company as to why its name should not be struck off from the register of companies, on account of not carrying on any business or operation for a period of two immediately preceding financial years and having not made any application within such period for obtaining the status of a dormant company under section 455 of the Companies Act, 2013.
6. The Appellant has stated that, it is not known whether M/s Srini Infrastrucuture Private Limited made any representation to the ROC in pursuance of the STK-5 but. It was found during the course of the assessment/reassessment proceedings that the name of the company was struck off from the register of companies vide notice dated 08.08.2018 being Public Notice no. ROC-DEL/248(5)/STK-7/4865 in Form STK-7 (Company’s name appearing at Sl. No. 20578) as per MCA master data of the company. The legality of the striking off the name of the company, from the register of the companies has been assailed by the Appellant on the ground that the assessment / reassessment was to result in an addition of nearly Rs. 10,15,000/- to the income of the Company.
7. The Appellant further states that, Assessment Order dated 29.11.2018 has since been passed under section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which has resulted in creation of demand of Rs. 35,30,570/- which was required to be paid within 30 days, failing which consequences were to follow in accordance with provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. Copy of the assessment order alongwith Demand Notice has been annexed with the appeal. The Respondent Company failed to furnish its return of income within stipulated time as required under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A. Y. 2011-12, therefore penalty orders alongwith demand notice dated 06.05.2019 under section 271(1)(b) for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and penalty order alongwith demand notice dated 31.05.2019 under section 271(1)(c) for an amount of Rs. 12,69,990/- were issued. Penalty Order alongwith demand notice dated 18.04.2019 under section 271F for an amount of Rs. 5,000/-. Copy of penalty orders alongwith demand notices has been annexed with the appeal.
8. The Appellant has filed its affidavit of service on 23.05.2019, where it has been stated that the publication was done in English newspaper “Business Standard”, Delhi edition dated 25.04.2019 and the name of the Respondent Company and its Directors was appearing at Serial No. 30 on Page No. 10. The publication was also done in Hindi newspaper “Jansatta”, Delhi edition 25.04.2019 and the name of the Respondent Company and its Directors was appearing at Serial No. 30 on Page No. 3. Copy of newspapers has been annexed along with the affidavit.
9. The Income Tax Department is an aggrieved party within the meaning of section 252(1) as it has to recover taxes payable by respondent company and great prejudice will be caused to the Appellant if the name of the respondent company is not restored back. In the above circumstances, this appeal is allowed. The Registrar of companies is therefore directed to resto
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
re the name of the Respondent Company in their Register and also proceed to take such other and further penal action against the Respondent Company in accordance with the statutory provisions. The name of the Respondent Company shall then, as a consequence, stand restored to the Register of the Registrar of Companies, as if the name of the company had never been struck off in accordance with Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013. 10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 11. Let the copy of order be supplied to parties.