JUDGEMENT

(Virtual Mode) JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) IA/719/2021 in Company Appeal (AT) No.47 of 2021:

1. According to the ‘Appellant’/‘Applicant’ in IA/719/2021 in Company Appeal (AT) No.47 of 2021 in CA No.350/252(ND)/2020 the 2 | P a g e ‘Appellant’/‘Applicant’ had received the certified copy of Impugned Order on 16.02.2021 only and that the ‘instant Appeal’ was filed on 15.03.2021, which is well within 45 days of the ‘Order’. Hence, the ‘Appellant’/‘Applicant’ prays for condoning the delay in preferring the ‘instant Appeal’.

2. The reason assigned by the ‘Appellant’/‘Applicant’ in not collecting the free copy of the order is due to ‘COVID-19 Pandemic’ and that the ‘Applicant’/‘Appellant’ had filed the Appeal’ on 12.03.2021 before the portal of the NCLAT, New Delhi with the delay of 25 days, the ‘Limitation’ is to be exempted, in the teeth of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Order dated 08.03.2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.2 of 2020 in Re. Cognizance for Extension of Limitation. Viewed in that perspective, this ‘Tribunal’ by taking a liberal, pragmatic, practical, purposeful, and meaningful view allows the IA/719/2021 in Company Appeal (AT) No. 47 of 2021 and condones the delay in preferring the ‘Appeal’. No Cost. INTRODUCTION:

1. The ‘Appellant’ has focused the instant Company Appeal (AT) No. 47 of 2021 as an ‘Aggrieved Person’ being dissatisfied with the ‘Impugned Order’ dated 31.12.2020 in ‘Appeal No. 350/252(ND)/2020 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Special Bench (Court-II).

2. The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Special Bench (Court- II) while passing the ‘Impugned Order’ dated 31.12.2020 in ‘Appeal No. 3 | P a g e 350/252(ND)/2020 (filed under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013) among other things at paragraph 5 to 14 had observed the following:

5. “It is submitted by the Appellant Company that it was in operation since its incorporation. To corroborate its submission, the Appellant Company has placed the following documents on record • a) Copy of Financial Statements for the Financial Years from 2016-17 to 2018-19.

b) Copy of the lease agreement executed on 22.03.2002, between Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (RIICO) Limited depicting a piece of land known as Plot No. Hp". c) Copy of the Income Tax Return for the year 2006-07.

d) Copy of the Bank Statement issued by Allahabad Bank for the period from 13.08.2010 to 31.12.2019

6. That the Income Tax Department has filed its reply and submitted that as per there e-filling database of the Assessee, no ITR was e-filled by the Assessee against the aforesaid allotted PAN,

7. The ROC, who filed its report, has made the following observation:

"6) That the Respondent most respectfully submits that the action of striking off of the present Company was legal and justified and was the result of the operation of the law, as the company was not carrying on any operations for a period of two immediately preceding financial years (as indicated by non-filing of the financial statements of the Company for two or more years). "

8. After hearing submissions and perusing documents placed on record by the Appellant Company, this bench observes that:

i. That the Appellant Company has not filed its Income Tax Return after the Assessment Year 2006-07. Even the return filed for the 4 | P a g e Assessment year 2006-07 depicts Nil Income of the Appellant Company.

ii. That the Bank Statements Annexed by the Appellant Company contain no significant transactions from 08.06.2015 to 31.12.2019. iii. That the Balance Sheets placed on record by the Appellant Company shows the following Revenue from Operations.

However, the same seems to have been prepared after the date of Striking off.

Balance Sheet for the Financial Year	Revenue from Operations (in
2016-17
2017-18	2, 44,340
2018-19

Balance Sheet for the Financial Year	Revenue from Operations (in
2016-17
2017-18	2, 44,340
2018-19

9. That on 0