Restoration of a company's name in the register is justified under the Companies Act when it serves public interest and fairness in tax recovery.

ORDER

PER: ATUL CHATURVEDI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

1. 156/252/ND/2023 is an Appeal filed by INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 26(3), the Appellant, before this Tribunal under Section 252(1) and/or Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 , for seeking the following relief:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased:

(a) To pass an order restoring the name of the Respondent/Company in the Register of the Registrar of Companies;

(b) To Quash the order/notification of the Ld. ROC which removed the name of the Respondent Company from the Register of Companies;

(c) To grant an ad-interim stay on the operation of the impugned order/notification of the ROC;

(d) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper is awarded in favor of the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Prayed Accordingly AND FOR SUCH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPELLANT, AS IS DUTY BOUND, SHALL EVER PRAY.”

2. Facts of the Case:

a) The Respondent No. 2 Company namely M/s. VPS Promoters Private Limited was incorporated on 01.02.2006, as a Private Company Limited by Shares (Non-govt Company) having CIN:U45201DL2006PTC145728, under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana. The Authorised Share Capital of the Respondent No. 2 Company was Rs. 5,00,000/- and the Paid-up Share Capital of the Respondent No. 2 Company was Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Registered Office Address of the Respondent No. 2 Company was Rectangle-1, D-4, Saket District Centre, Saket, New Delhi- 110017. Therefore, this Bench has jurisdiction to deal with this Appeal. A copy of the Company Details/Master Data of the Respondent Company is filed along with the Appeal.

b) The Directors of the Respondent No. 2 Company Mr. Vijay Kumar Khurana (DIN: 01736251) and Mr. Gopal Krishna Agrawal (DIN: 07303636) have been arrayed as Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 4.

c) It is submitted that the Show Cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act was issued to the Assessee Company on 09.02.2023 for the assessment year 2019-2020 after obtaining the prior approval from the competent authority to submit the reply within a week.

d) As per the available information, the Assessee Company has entered into three transactions totaling Rs. 7,75,05,000/- against which no return of income has been filed. The three transactions are namely as under:

i. As per TDS statement, as undisclosed income of Rs. 5,44,86,000/- received as consideration against sale of immovable property from one M/s. Sumdhura Realty.

ii. Cash withdrawals of Rs. 2,30,13,000/- from Allahabad Bank Account.

iii. Cash Deposit of Rs. 6,000/- in Allahabad Bank Account.

e) Due to non-compliance of notice under Section 148A(b) on merits of the case by the Assessee company and also in light of information/material available with the department, the Appellant passed an order under clause (d) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act 1961 on 10.03.2023. It is submitted that proceedings were initiated against the Assessee Company and a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued against the Assessee on 10.03.2023 for the Assessment Year 2019-2020.

f) It is submitted that the Appellant Revenue Authority came to know from the MCA portal that the said Respondent Company has been struck off by ROC, vide Form STK7 dated 29.10.2019 (Company’s name appearing at Serial. No.7771).

g) It is further submitted that for framing assessment, for recovery of the taxes from the Respondent Company, and for any further consequential proceedings against the company under the I.T. Act, it is just and equitable and in the public interest that the name of the Respondent Company be restored to the register of companies as if the name of the company had not been struck off from the register of companies.

3. It is noted that on 19.02.2024, no one appeared on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, despite due service of notice and paper publication. Therefore, Respondents No. 2 to 4 were set ex par