TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fair and just in the nature and circumstances of the case in hand. the Company. The copy of the Income Tax Return Acknowledgement produced on the side of the Appellant shows that the Appellant has submitted IT Return for the Assessment year 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Registrar of Companies, the respondent herein, is ordered to restore the original status of the Appellant Company as if the name of the company has not been struck off from the Register of Companies with resultant and consequential actions like changing status of Company from 'strike off to Active - The restoration of the Company's name is also subject to the payment of cost of ₹ 1,25,000/-. - Appeal No. 867/KB/2019 - - - Dated:- 3-9-2019 - Jinan K.R., Member (J) And Harish Chander Suri, Member (T) For the Appellant : Rohit Kumar Keshri, PCS and C.M. Karlmarx, Deputy Registrar ORDER Jinan K.R., Member (J) 1. This is an Application filed by one of the Shareholders of M/s. Indesign Designers Private Limited Vs. ROC, West Bengal under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 for restoration of the name of the Company which has been struck off by the Registrar o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that in terms of the said provisions, the NCLT while passing an order for restoration, is to be satisfied that the company is carrying on business or in operation. Further, it is submitted that due to non-filing of statutory returns by the Company, the competent authority drew an opinion that the Company was not carrying on business or in operation. As per provision of section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 after the expiry of the prescribed time period and as no response has been received from the company and the public, a notice (in STK No. 7) dated 30-06-2017 was issued by the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal reflecting the name of the company as strike off w.e.f. 09-06-2017. The petitioner company's name appears at SI. No. 3044 of the Registrar of Companies notice (STK-7) dated 30-06-2017 and the same was published in the Official Gazette on 15-07-2017. It is submitted that the directors of the company, namely, Rekha Kar and Shri Tapas Kumar Maiti has been disqualified under section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 and the DIN of the directors has been deactivated for the period from 01-11-2016 to 31-10-2021 for non-filing of statutory returns of M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this case, contends that the Company was carrying on its business and was in operation but due to lack of knowledge and with no proper Professional guidance, the Company failed in submitting the Balance sheet and Annual Returns since the financial year 31-03-2013. 7. The Ld. PCS appearing for the Appellant Company referred to the Financial Statements and the Directors' Reports, Statement of Bank Account and IT Return for strengthening its contention that the Company was in operation on the date of striking off of the name of the Company. 8. In order to have an understanding about the financial status of the Company, name of which has been struck off, it is fair and just to have a look into the particulars mentioned in the Financial Statements so as to consider as to whether the Company is a going concern, which is given below : F.Y Ending Asset Liability Total revenue Profit Loss 31-03- 2013 ₹ 2,78,46,347=01 ₹ 2,78,46,347 = 01 ₹ 1, 70,71,468=00 ₹ 5,17,708=4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Company. The copy of the Income Tax Return Acknowledgement produced on the side of the Appellant shows that the Appellant has submitted IT Return for the Assessment year 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. 10. According to the Ld. PCS for the Appellant, the Appellant Company is carrying on its business as Architect, Interior Designer and is in operation. The business of the Company seems to have been carried on and accordingly, the Appeal is liable to be allowed, however, with a cost for non complying the statutory provisions without any reasonable excuse. The Appellant Company failed to file the balance sheets and Annual Returns since the financial year 31- 03-2013. The contention that due to lack of knowledge and with no proper Professional guidance, the Company failed in submitting the balance sheets and Annual Returns since the financial year 31-03-2013, cannot be believed as a genuine reason. So, awarding the cost of ₹ 1,25,000/- ( Rupees One Lakh Twenty five thousand only) is fair and just in the nature and circumstances of the case in hand. 11. In view of the above said discussions, the Appeal is liable to be allowed invoking the power of this Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
