TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 683X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een able to satisfy this Bench that they are the aggrieved party within the meaning of Sec.252(1) read with Section 252(3) of Companies Act, 2013 and great prejudice will be caused to Revenue and public at large, if the name of the respondent company is not restored back. The Appellant has filed its affidavit of service on 05.02.2020, wherein it states that service through publication was effected through newspapers Financial Express and Jansatta on 30.01.2020 on the Respondent Company and its Directors in pursuance of the order of this Tribunal. It is further stated that in spite of proper service to the respondent nos. 2 to 4, none appeared. Hence, the case was proceeded ex-parte against the said Respondents vide order dated 03.03.2020 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e at Shop No.5, Rani Jhansi Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110 005 having CIN No. U74899DL1991PTC046128. The business of the appellant company is to carry outsale / purchase of bullion. The Authorised and Paid -up share capital of the respondent is ₹ 4,00,00,000/- and ₹ 1,42,82,000/- respectively. The respondent company filed its last balance sheet for the year ended 31.03.2014. 3. A sweeping action was initiated by the ROC at the instance of MCA in striking off the names of several Companies who had failed to file their Statutory Returns. Consequently, its name was struck off by the Respondent RoC from the Register of Companies under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 vide notification dated 08.08.2018 at Sr. No.11832. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 43,91,665/- has been created against the respondent company. The appellant submitted that as respondent company has made evasions under different provisions of Income tax Act hence notices dated 25.12.2019 u/sec.271AAC, 272(A)(1()(d), 270A and 271B of Income-tax Act, 2961 has been issued to the respondent company. The respondent company had failed to disclose fully and truly all material particulars to the appellant Income tax department. 5. The appellant Income-tax submitted that as per provisions of Sec.250 of Companies Act, 2013, despite Strike Office of the respondent company u/sec.248 of Companies Act, 2013, the company does not stand dissolved for the purpose of discharge of obligations of the company including obligations to fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondents vide order dated 03.03.2020. On 15.10.2020 respondents 2 to 4 put in appearance and both the sides agreed to revival of the respondent company. 10. The Income Tax Department is an aggrieved party within the meaning of section 252(1) and a creditor under Section 252(3) as it has to recover tax demand and penalty from the respondent company and great prejudice will be caused to the Appellant if the name of the respondent company is not restored back. In the above circumstances, this appeal is allowed. The Registrar of companies is therefore directed to restore the name of the Respondent Company in their Register.The name of the Respondent Company shall then, as a consequence, stand restored to the Register of the Registrar of Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
