SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 2500

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Income Tax officer – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Companies (Telcon BPO India Pvt. Ltd.) – Respondent
Appeal - 11/2025



IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

NEW DELHI BENCH, COURT-III

Under Section 252(1) and/or Section 252(3) of the Companies Act,

2013.

IN THE MATTER OF:

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 25(1)

Having Its Office at:

Room No. 225D, 2nd Floor,

Central Revenue Building, I.P. Estate,

New Delhi – 110002. …… Appellant

VERSUS

REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, DELHI & Ors.

1. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, DELHI

Having Its Office at:

NCT of Delhi & Haryana

4th Floor, IFCI Tower,

Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.

…… Respondent No. 1

2. Telcon BPO India Private Limited

Having Its Registered Office at:

Prop No. C-1/ 6 & 7, Basement, Back Side,

Mohan Shopping, Bhagwati Comp,

Rama Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi - 110059.

…… Respondent No. 2

3. Mr. Yatin Bansal

Director of Telcon BPO India Private Limited

…… Respondent No. 3 4. Ms./Mr. Daya Sagar

Director of Telcon BPO India Private Limited

…… Respondent No. 4

Order Pronounced On: 02.06.2025 CORAM:

SHRI BACHU VENKAT BALARAM DAS, HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

SHRI DR. SANJEEV RANJAN, HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant : Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC, Mr. Ashvini Kr, Mr.

Rishabh Nangia, Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advs.

For the Respondents No. 2 to 4 : ex parte vide order 26.05.2025 For the RoC :

ORDER

PER: DR. SANJEEV RANJAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

1. 11/252/ND/2025 is an Appeal filed by INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 25(1), the Appellant, before this Tribunal under Section 252(1) and/or Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, for seeking the following relief:

“(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.

Prayed Accordingly”

2. Facts of the Case:

a) The Respondent No. 2 Company namely Telcon BPO India Private Limited was incorporated on 17/07/2017, as a Private Company Limited by Shares (Non-govt Company) having CIN: U74999DL2017PTC320739, under the Companies Act, 2013 with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana. The Authorised Share Capital of the Respondent No. 2 Company was Rs. 50,000/- and the Paid-up Share Capital of the Respondent No. 2 Company was Rs. 50,000/-. The Registered Office Address of the Respondent No. 2 Company was Prop No. C-1/ 6 & 7, Basement, Back Side, Mohan Shopping, Bhagwati Comp, Rama Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi- 110059. 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. Yatin Bansal (DIN: 07443908) and Ms./Mr. Daya Sagar (DIN: 06915752) have been arrayed as Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 4.

c) It is submitted that the Assessee Company (Respondent No. 2)

and its Directors (Respondent Nos. 3 and 4) have failed to carry out their obligations and violated provisions of Income Tax Act 1961 hence, proceedings were initiated against the Assessee Company. Consequently, a notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued against the Assessee on 30.03.2023 for the Assessment Year 2019-20.

d) The Appellant passed the Assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and found out that income of Respondent no. 2 chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for AY 2019-20 which resulted into a demand of Rs. 13,21,060/- is pending against the Assessee Company.

e) The Appellant Revenue came to know from the MCA portal that the said Respondent Company has been struck off by RoC, vide Form No. STK-7 dated 20.04.2022 (Company’s name appearing at Serial. No.9168).

f) It is contended that as per provisions of Section 250 of Companies Act 2013, despite "Strike Off" of the Respondent Company under Section 248 of the Companies Act 2013, the company does not stand dissolved for the purpose of disch

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top