9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt show day to day transactions with various parties located within and outside Hyderabad. Such transactions do support the contention of the Applicant that it is a functional, going concern - Further, the counsel for the Applicant has also submitted copies of Assets and Liabilities, Revenue figures, profit/loss figures for various years based on the Audited Financial Statements, from which it appears that the 1st Respondent Company has been doing business but failed to file Annual Returns and Income Tax Returns due to reason said in the Application. The provisions of Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 stipulate that this Tribunal may direct restoration of 1st Respondent name, if it is just and equitable to do so. In view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... off from the Register of Companies. d) Order that the 1st Respondent Company shall deliver a certified copy of the order of this Tribunal to the Registrar of Companies (ROC) within 30 Days from the date of the order in physical form. e) Order that upon delivery of the physical form of the certified copy of the order of this tribunal, the Registrar of Companies (ROC) enables the 1st Respondent Company to deliver the order through electronic mode in the form of an attachment to Form INC-28 or with any other relevant form as prescribed by Ministry of Corporate Affairs. f) Order that upon such delivery, the Registrar of Companies (ROC) do, in his Official Name and Seal, publish the order in the Official Gazette enabling the 1st R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y had its operations from the date of its incorporation and is conducting the meetings of Board of Directors as well as General Meetings regularly in Compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. The 1st Respondent Company has filed its Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 but has not filed the returns for the previous years as the 1st Respondent Company has incurred loss in those years. d. That the Financials of the 1st Respondent Company having revenue from the operations is ₹ 1,70,66,000/- and ₹ 7,001/- as per 31.03.2018 and 31.03.2019 respectively. e. Due to defaults in statutory compliances namely failure to file the Financial Statements the Annual Returns for the period ended 31.03.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ending documents/statutory returns in respect of the 1st Respondent Company along with fee and additional fee as prescribed under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 once the name of the 1st Respondent Company is restored in the Register of Companies. The Applicant further undertook to ensure the statutory compliance with the applicable provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 in time, in future, without any further delay and prayed for an order directing the 2nd Respondent (ROC) for restoration of the name of the company in the Register of companies, so as to enable the 1st Respondent Company to file the relevant documents. i. The Applicant has filed an Affidavit dated 18.01.2020, stating the following as under: The 1st Respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C) has raised the following objections in its Report and prayed to dispose the instant application on merits : Para 9(3): The applicant has filed Balance Sheet and Annual Returns upto 2017 on 29.11.2019 after the company was struck off as on 29.10.2019. Para 9(4): The Company needs to explain Compliances of Section 73 read with Companies (Acceptances and Deposits) Rule 2014 in respect of amounts of loan taken from directors with supplementary declaration/paper. Para 9(5) : The Company has filed Income Tax Returns for the Financial Year 2019-20 only and not furnished for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19. Para 9(6) :It is further stated that Bank Statement furnished by the company it appears that the company is active in its o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 stipulate that this Tribunal may direct restoration of 1st Respondent name, if it is just and equitable to do so. In view of the averments made and evidence placed, refusal to restore will be an excessive penalty for the over-sight on the part of the 1st Respondent Company. 4. Accordingly, having satisfied with the reasons as mentioned in the Application as also on the perusal of ROC's report dated 03.03.2020 vide no. ROCH/LEGAL/SEC252/096418/JSPL/JTA(S)/2019 this Tribunal is of the opinion that it would be just and proper to order the restoration of name of the 1st Respondent Company in the Register of Companies, maintained by the 2nd Respondent (ROC) Hyderabad, Telangana. 5. The Applicant sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
