9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 880X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the law. It would be just and proper to restore the name of the company M/s. Blue Eye Infotech Pvt. Ltd. In the register maintained by the Registrar of Companies, Ahmedabad so as to enable the Income Tax Department to initiate or to proceed with its statutory action/ proceedings in respect of the assessee company - appeal allowed. - CO. APPEAL NO. 460/252/NCLT/AHM/2018 - - - Dated:- 29-3-2019 - MR HARIHAR PRAKASH CHATURVEDI MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MS. MANORAMA KUMARI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For The Appellant : Mr Nachiket D. Mehta and Ms. Maithili Mehta, Advocates ORDER Per : MR HARIHAR PRAKASH CHATURVEDI MEMBER (JUDICIAL) 1. The present company appeal is filed by the Department of Income Tax, Ahmedabad, Gujarat seeking for restoration of name of an assessee company; i.e. M/s. Blue Eye Infotech Pvt. Ltd. against which, the Income Tax department's re-assessment proceedings in the year 2011-12 is said to be pending and a statutory notice under sections 147 and 148 of the income tax act were issued. Since the assessee company's name stood struck off from the Register of ROC, Gujarat, Ahmedabad. The ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 69. The said company was incorporated to be involved in the activity of trading and wholesale distributors of computer and computer peripherals. The Director (s) of the company were Mr. Nipun Suryakant Oza, Smt. Kalaben Kishorbhai Thakkar and Mr. Niren Thakkar and the Permanent Account Number of the company is: AAECB3739Q. The registered office of the company was situated at: Shivalik Corporate Park, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad - 380015, Gujarat. 4. The appellant in the present appeal has further contended that the Registrar of the Companies vide its notice No. ROC/AHMD/248(5)/STK-7/PUB/1, dated 21.06.2017 (issued in the form no. STK-7) followed by a final notice issued under sub-section (5) of Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013, has struck off the name of the company from its register with effect from 21.06.2017, on such ground that the Respondent No. 2 company did not file its statutory returns e.g. financial statements since its incorporation with the ROC, Gujarat, Ahmedabad. It is further apprehended by the income tax department if the name of the company is not restored in the statutory register as maintained by the ROC under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated/launched. 8. Keeping in view, the above stated circular, issued by CBDT; the ROC, Ahmedabad vide its representation has submitted that it is having no objection if the name of respondent no. 2 company is restored in its statutory register under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 but equally the ROC has also pointed out this fact that the present appeal is filed after the validity of CODS scheme; i.e. 01.05.2018 before this Tribunal. Hence, other relief(s) being sought for by the appellant in the present appeal specifically relief no. (iii) in its relief clause of which relates the removal of disqualification of the Director of the company; cannot be considered. 9. In support of its contentions. The ROC has placed reliance on a General Circular No.05/2018, F.No.02/04/2017-CL-V, dated 17.05.2018 issued by Ministry of Corporate Affairs, which reads as under: (1) In continuation of General Circular No. 16/2017 dated 29.12.2017, General Circular No. 02/2018 dated 28.03.2018 and General Circular No. 03/2018 dated 27.04.2018 on the subject cited above, it is stated that this Ministry has received representations from stakeholders r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner. 11. We duly considered the above stated facts and circumstances of the present appeal in the light of above stated circular/ circulars issued by the Central Government, through the Ministry of Finance, CBDT, New Delhi as well as by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs in respect of policies as formulated by the Central Government to consider for restoration of the name of the defaulter assessee company as well as the policy of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to consider for removal of disqualification of director of such company, imposed under section 164 of the Companies Act. 12. It is a matter of record that the Income Tax Department in respect of the Respondent No. 2 company i.e. M/s. Blue Eye Infotech Pvt. Ltd. has contended that it has reopened income tax assessment for the AY 2012-13 relevant FY 2011-12 which is pending and further there is outstanding demand of income tax for the years 2011-12 to 2012-13 amounting to ₹ 1,94,81,172. If the name of the said company is not restored in the statutory register of ROC, the said assessment/ scrutiny would become futile and barred by the limitation. Hence, the company name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... panies, which have accepted public deposits which are either outstanding or the company is in default in repayment of the same; 16. By plane reading the above stated Rule, it is clear that name of such companies not to be deregistered if any legal/ administrative action against it has been initiated or to be taken. 17. In the present matter, it is undisputed position in the matter that the income tax department has already taken a conscious/ administrative decision against the Respondent No. 2 company on alleged escapement of income from assessment during the relevant financial year, hence, its name ought not to be removed in the light of above stated proviso. 18. Hence, by considering the public interest involved in the present matter and also to protect adequately the interest of the Revenue/ Central Government, the name of the respondent company requires to be restored in the statutory register being maintained by the ROC so as to enable the appellant (Income Tax Department) as well as other Regulatory Authorities to proceed further in respect of its legal action against the assessee company as per rule and in accordance with the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
