Tribunal restores Motiram Pharma's name in Companies Register, validates Income Tax Dept appeal

The Tribunal ordered the restoration of the name of Motiram Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. in the Register of Companies, setting aside the previous striking off order due to fraudulent misrepresentations by the company's directors. The appeal by the Income Tax Department was deemed timely and valid, allowing them to proceed with tax assessments against the company.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Restoration of the company's name struck off by the Registrar of Companies.
2. Compliance with procedural guidelines for striking off the company's name.
3. Misrepresentation and false information provided by the company's directors.
4. Jurisdiction and rights of the Income Tax Department as an aggrieved party.
5. Legal validity of the striking off order and subsequent actions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Restoration of the Company's Name Struck Off by the Registrar of Companies:
The appeal was filed under Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-6, seeking the restoration of the name of Motiram Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd., struck off by the Registrar of Companies (RoC) on 15.01.2015. The company had applied for striking off through the Fast Track Exit (FTE) Mode, and the name was struck off based on the application filed by the company's director.

2. Compliance with Procedural Guidelines for Striking Off the Company's Name:
The RoC claimed to have followed due diligence by seeking a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from relevant authorities, including the Income Tax Department, before striking off the company's name. However, the notice was sent to the wrong jurisdiction (ITO Ward 22(4) instead of ITO Ward 17(2)), and no PAN number was specified, making it impossible for the Income Tax Department to respond appropriately.

3. Misrepresentation and False Information Provided by the Company's Directors:
The directors of the company filed an affidavit stating no dues towards Income Tax or other authorities, which was later found to be false. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) reported money laundering operations involving the company, which led to reopening the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The company's directors avoided notices and provided false information, leading to the fraudulent striking off of the company's name.

4. Jurisdiction and Rights of the Income Tax Department as an Aggrieved Party:
The Income Tax Department, as an aggrieved party, sought the restoration of the company's name to proceed with tax assessments. The Tribunal recognized the department as an "aggrieved person" under Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, allowing them to seek restoration. The appeal was filed within the prescribed three-year period, making it timely and valid.

5. Legal Validity of the Striking Off Order and Subsequent Actions:
The Tribunal found that the striking off was based on false declarations and misrepresentations by the company's directors, supported by certifications from professionals. The order of striking off was vitiated by fraud, necessitating the restoration of the company's name to enable the Income Tax Department to exercise its rights against the company.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal ordered the restoration of the name of Motiram Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. in the Register of Companies maintained by the RoC, setting aside the order dated 15.01.2015. The appeal was allowed, recognizing the fraudulent basis of the striking off and the legitimate interest of the Income Tax Department in pursuing tax assessments. No order as to costs was made.

---