9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re are no reason to differ from NCLT. There is no substance in this appeal. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Company Appeal (AT) No. 216 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 28-1-2019 - Mr. A. I. S. Cheema Member (Judicial) and Balvinder Singh Technical Member For Appellant:- Sh Abhishek Anand, Advocate. For Respondents: - Mr. P.S. Singh, Advocate for Ministry of Corporate Affairs. JUDGEMENT This appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 23rd April, 2018 passed by the Learned National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, (Court No.IV) (NCLT in short) in Appeal No.116/252/ND/2018. 2. The name of the appellant company was struck off by the Regi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e also placed before the NCLT. The NCLT considered the case put up before it as well as the documents and came to the conclusion that the appellant company failed to prove that it was carrying on business or was in operation when its name was struck off and dismissed the appeal which was filed before it. Against the dismissal the present appeal has been filed and the same claim is put up by the appellant referring to the documents which were filed before NCLT. 5. The ROC filed reply before us and affidavit of ROC claims that the appellant company had not filed financial statements from the financial year ending 31.3.2004 till 31.3.2011. The balance sheet and annual return was filed for the year ending 31.3.2012 and thereafter a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant was in business or in operation when the name was struck off. Thus we are not accepting the contention that opportunity to the appellant was not given. Regarding the merits of the claim that the appellant was in business or in operation the documents filed before us include two income tax returns at Annexure 11 for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The return for 2016-17 claims that the gross total income of the year was ₹ 504 and the income tax return for 2017-18 claims that the gross total income was ₹ 1473/-. Counsel for the appellant wanted to state that the invoices at Pages 177 to 182 relate to purchaser orders. If these invoices are seen, the seller is shown as Kanodia Hosiery Mills and buyer is Kanodia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e invoices beyond March 2017. Thus during the period of striking off the name of the Company in June, 2017 there is no record to show the business in operation. 12. However, the company has not put on record the Bank Statements of the Company for the period when the name of the company was struck off. The bank statements submitted are for the period from 1st March, 2013 to 31st December, 2013. There are no bank statements brought on record to show any transactions during the said period when the company s name was struck off and the company claimed that the account was not functioning from 2013 since transactions were mostly carried out in cash, for small amounts. 13. The Income Tax returns for the assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s otherwise just that the name of the company be restored on the register. 17. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it can be seen from the audited balance sheets, the bank Statements and all other documents brought on record by the Appellant Company that it was neither carrying on any business nor in operation when its name was struck off by the register of companies. 18. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, it is inferred that there is no just reason to restore the Company s name on Register of Companies. 8. Having heard the Learned counsel for the appellant, and seeing the documents when we have considered the above findings and observations of the Learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
