IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

NEW DELHI BENCH-V

DIVISION BENCH

IN THE MATTER OF:

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 19(3),

CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

I.P. ESTATE,

NEW DELHI- 110002 ...APPELLANT

VERSUS

1. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, DELHI

Having his office at

4TH FLOOR, IFCI TOWER,

61, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110019 …RESPONDENT NO. 1

2. M/S PEAL CREATION PVT. LTD. 45/1, FIRST FLOOR, GANDHI GALI,

FATEHPURI, CHANDI CHOWK,

DELHI- 110006

…RESPONDENT NO. 2

3. OM PRAKASH SHARMA, DIRECTOR

45/1, FIRST FLOOR, GANDHI GALI,

FATEHPURI, CHANDI CHOWK,

DELHI- 110006

…RESPONDENT NO. 3

4. URMILA, DIRECTOR

45/1, FIRST FLOOR, GANDHI GALI,

FATEHPURI, CHANDI CHOWK,

DELHI- 110006

…RESPONDENT NO. 4

Order Delivered on: 05.12.2025

CORAM:

SHRI MAHENDRA KHANDELWAL, MS. ANU JAGMOHAN SINGH, HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

PRESENT:

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

Nangia, Mr. Nikhil Jain, Mr. Pratham Aggarwal,

Advs.

For the RoC : Ms. Shankari Mishra, Niti Khanna, Advs.

ORDER

1. This appeal has been filed by the Income Tax Authority invoking the provisions of Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013, for restoration of the name of the Respondent No. 2 Company, M/s Peal Creation Private Limited, in the Register of Companies maintained by the RoC, Respondent No. 1.

2. Vide Proceedings initiated by the office of the RoC, the names of several companies were struck off for want of filing Statutory Returns. Respondent No. 2 Company, which had not filed any Return or Financial Statement, was duly struck off from the Register of Companies vide STK-7 dated

08.08.2018.

3. This Tribunal vide its order dated 03.03.2025 directed the appellant to issue notice to the Respondents. Further, vide order dated 30.04.2025, liberty was granted to the appellant to serve the respondent through publication. Service was duly affected via publication in newspapers dated 02.06.2025 on the Respondent Company. The proof of service via publication was filed vide an Affidavit of Service dated 04.06.2025. The respondents (other than ROC), failed to appear and respond to the notice. On failure of Respondents No. 2 to 4 to appear, vide order dated 10.09.2025, respondents other than RoC were set as ex-parte.

4. The Proxy counsel appearing on behalf of the RoC submitted before this Tribunal that as per their instruction, generally they do not oppose the appeal filed by the Income Tax Department for restoration of the name of the company, as recorded in the order dated 26.11.2025.

5. Invoking the provision of Section 252(3) of the Companies Act 2013, the Income Tax Department prayed for restoration of the name of the Respondent Company so that their dues may be recovered.

6. The copy of the Assessment Order dated 29.05.2023, along with the Demand Notice for A.Y. 2013-14 reflecting the total outstanding demand of Rs. 3,33,46,840 /-, is placed on record. It is submitted that penalty proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961, were initiated against the Respondent Company.

7. The grievance of the Income Tax Dept. is that the name of the Respondent Company had been struck off by the RoC, affecting the recovery of tax dues. It is therefore necessary that, in order to take steps for recovery of taxes and for any further consequential proceedings, the Respondent Company’s name be restored to the Register of Companies as if the name of the Company was never struck off. The restoration of the name of the Respondent Company to the Register of Companies would be just and equitable and in the public interest.

8. The provisions of Section 252(3) confer power upon this Tribunal to restore the name of the company to the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies, if it is satisfied that the company was, at the time of its name being struck off, either carrying on business or was in operation or otherwise it is just that the name of the company be restored to the Register of Companies. Such power can be exercised before the expiry of twenty years of the publication of notice of striking of