Appeal Denied: Company Name Restoration Rejected under Companies Act, 2013

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal seeking restoration of the Appellant Company's name in the register under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. Despite the Appellant's efforts to prove active status with submitted documents, including financial statements, the RoC's strike-off decision was upheld. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for companies to demonstrate ongoing business operations or valid reasons for restoration, which the Appellant failed to establish. Compliance with statutory requirements and providing adequate evidence of business activities are crucial for successful restoration under the Companies Act, 2013.

---

---

Issues:
1. Restoration of the name of the Appellant Company in the register maintained by the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana.
2. Compliance with statutory requirements for filing Financial Statements & Annual Returns.
3. Evidence of the Appellant Company's business operations and financial activities.
4. Failure to file Income Tax returns.
5. Interpretation of Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 regarding restoration of struck-off companies.

Analysis:
1. The appeal sought restoration of the Appellant Company's name in the register due to its strike-off by the RoC for non-compliance with statutory requirements, invoking Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013.
2. The RoC initiated proceedings under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013, and struck off the company's name for failure to file Financial Statements & Annual Returns. The Appellant claimed to be active and submitted documents supporting its operations, including financial statements, bank statements, GST registration, and customs documents.
3. Despite the Appellant's submissions, the RoC contended that the strike-off was legal as the company had not carried out any operations for two consecutive financial years. The Appellant failed to provide audited financials and adequate evidence of business activities.
4. The Income Tax Department did not file a reply, and the Appellant did not submit Income Tax returns, which are mandatory under the Income Tax Act, further weakening their case for restoration.
5. The Tribunal referenced a judgment highlighting the conditions for restoration under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, emphasizing the necessity for the company to be actively carrying on business or demonstrating just reasons for restoration. The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant failed to establish its operational status, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and upholding the RoC's strike-off decision.

Overall, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the Appellant Company did not meet the criteria for restoration as required by the Companies Act, 2013, and failed to provide sufficient evidence of its business activities during the relevant period. The judgment underscores the importance of compliance with statutory obligations and the need for companies seeking restoration to demonstrate ongoing business operations or justifiable reasons for reinstatement.

---