The restoration of a struck-off company's name relates back to the date of striking off, validating subsequent actions such as notices issued under tax laws.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)--The Petitioner herein is the director of RKA International Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (`the Company'). The Company was struck off by the Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana (`ROC'), from its register of companies, under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 (`Companies Act') on 30th June, 2017, in pursuance of the proceedings initiated by Ministry of Corporate Affairs through the office of ROC, due to the defaults of the Company.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking quashing of the notice dated 28th March, 2019 (impugned notice), issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`the Act') for Assessment Year (`AY') 2012-13 on the ground that the said notice is null and void, as it has been issued in the name of the struck off company.

3. The Respondent has filed its counter affidavit, placing on record the order dated 25th September, 2019, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (`NCLT'), allowing the petition filed by the Income Tax Department (`the Department') under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013, for restoration of the name of the Company in the register of companies, maintained by the ROC Delhi. Learned Counsel for the Respondent states that since the Company now stands restored, the present writ petition which is premised on the sole ground that the impugned notice was issued in the name of a struck off Company, does not survive any more and the entire petition has become infructuous.

4. He further, on merits, states that though the Company was struck off with effect from 7th June, 2017, the said Company was active during AY 2012-13 and it failed to file its income tax return (`ITR') for the said assessment year and therefore, it is a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. He states that as per the reasons recorded before issuance of the impugned notice, an amount of Rs.10,09,00,000/- has escaped assessment for AY 2012-13. He states that Company is also liable to pay a tax demand of Rs.3,11,14,000/- for the AY 2011-12.

5. In reply, the learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the order of the NCLT, restoring name of the Company in the register of companies on 25th September, 2019 is to no effect because as on 28th March, 2019, when the impugned notice was issued, the Company was admittedly struck off and the subsequent order restoring the Company would not cure the defect of issuance of impugned notice in the name of non-existent Company, on the date of issue.

6. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the Respondent states that the Income Tax Department had filed an appeal for the restoration of the Company on 14th September, 2018 i.e., prior to issuance of impugned notice for the concerned assessment year. He states that the restoration relates back to the date of striking off and the impugned notice does not suffer from any infirmity.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent both have relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur v. Gopal Shri Scrips Private Limited, (2020) 7 SCC 654 in support of their submissions.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

9. The petitioner herein is the promoter and director of the Company and he has filed the present petition in his individual capacity, impugning the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, in the name of the company. The Petitioner admits the Company stands restore