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

2023 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 2932

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – Appellant
Versus
REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES M/S STRUM INFRA DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD – Respondent
Appeal - 1057/2018



Advocates:
For the Petitioner:LAKSHMI GURUNG

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI, COURT-III Appeal No. 1057-252-ND-2018 Under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013.

IN THE MATTER OF:

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 24(2), 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, NCT of Delhi & Haryana

4th Floor, IFCI Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.

2. M/s. STRUM INFRA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED Having Its Registered Office at:

C-17, Ground Floor, Guru Nanak Pura, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. 3. Mr. NITIN KUMAR JAIN Director of M/s. Strum Infra Development Private Limited S-89B, Ground Floor, Sunder Block, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092.

4. Mr. VINOD KUMAR Director of M/s. Strum Infra Development Private Limited S-89B, Ground Floor, Sunder Block, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092. …… Respondents Order Pronounced On: 10.10.2023 CORAM:

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

SHRI ATUL CHATURVEDI, HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant : Mr. Puneet Rai, Sr Standing Counsel For the RoC : Ms. Mitika Raja, Ld. ARoC on behalf of RoC, NCT of Delhi & Haryana

ORDER

PER: ATUL CHATURVEDI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

1. 1057/252/ND/2018 is an Appeal filed by INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 24(2), NEW DELHI, the Appellant on 09.10.2018, before this Tribunal under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013, for seeking the following relief:

a) “Order for Restoration of the name of the Respondent No. 2 Company to the register of Companies as if the name of the Company had not been struck off from the register of Companies.

b) Pass such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts of the instant case, in order to grant necessary relief to the Appellant.” 2. Facts of the Case:

a) The Respondent No. 2 Company namely M/s. Strum Infra Development Private Limited was incorporated on 05.07.2010 as a Company Limited by Shares (Non-govt. Company) having CIN: U70101DL2010PTC205241, 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.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh Only) and the Paid-up Share Capital of the Respondent No. 2 Company was Rs.24,56,120/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakh Fifty Six Thousand One Hundred Twenty Only). The Registered Office Address of the Respondent No. 2 Company was C-17, Ground Floor, Guru Nanak Pura, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. Therefore, this Bench has jurisdiction to deal with this Appeal. A copy of the Company Details/Master Data of the Respondent Company No.

2 is filed along with the Appeal.

b) The Directors of the Respondent No. 2 Company Mr. Nitin Kumar Jain (DIN:03180955) and Mr. Vinod Kumar (DIN: 03245665) have been arrayed as Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 4 respectively.

c) The Information has been received from the Investigation Wing, New Delhi vide letter dated 15.2.2018 that the Respondent Company has maintained a current account with the Federal Bank Limited, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, bearing Account No. 16140200002024 which was opened on 25.11.2010 and closed in the financial year 2011-12. The aforesaid bank account of the Respondent Company was credited with Rs. 5,39,75,207/- and Rs. 6,42,71,928/- during the F.Y 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively.

d) Perusal of the ITR shows that the Respondent Company has shown a gross receipt of Rs. 1,85,63,024/- as against total credit of Rs. 5,39,75,207/-. The Respondent Company had declared an income of Rs. 1,63,560/- for A.Y. 2011-12 and the same was processed under Section 143(1) accepting the said return. It is pertinent to mention that the case was not selected for scrutiny.

e) Upon receipt of information from the Investigating Wing, the Appellant examined the ITR of the Respondent Company and has reasons to believe that the difference amount of Rs. 3,54,12,181/- (i.e. 5,39,75,207/- minus 1,85,63,024/-) has escaped assessment, thereby rendering the company liable for consequences

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