TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 880
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the present appeal seeking a prayer from this Tribunal for direction to the Respondent No. 1, i.e. Registrar of Companies to restore the name of Respondent No. 2, the Company namely, M/s. Blue Eye Infotech Pvt. Ltd. in the statutory register, which the ROC, Ahmedabad vide its impugned order dated 21.06.2017 has struck off. 2. It is submitted by the Income Tax department in the present appeal that some scrutiny is going on against the respondent/ assessee company for the reassessment the income (for the Annual Year 2011-12) which is relevant to financial year 2010-11. It is alleged that the assessee has not paid the tax of Rs. 98,53,230 + Rs. 64,26,984 till date. The total interest chargeable on the total arrear demand u/s. 220(2) of the Income Tax Act comes to Rs. 31,96,028. It is also contended that in addition to the above, the total Income Tax dues demand to the tune of Rs. 1,94,81,172 are pending. Therefore, the Income Tax Department has decided to re-open the assessment of the company i.e. M/s. Blue Eye Infotech Pvt. Ltd. which is now pending. It is further stated that in case, the name of the company is not restored then it would become futile and barred by limitation. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....government. 5. In the present appeal, in response to the notice issued to the ex-director of the company, one of the ex-director of the company Ms. Kalaben Thakkar has filed reply stating inter-alia that she has already resigned from the directorship of the company in June-2013 and therefore, she is not authorized signatory in any bank account of the company nor she entered in any agreement on behalf of the company nor she has authorized any one to sign on her behalf. She further contended that the operations of the company are being maintained by SIS Group and Mr. Sunil Kakkar, who is indirectly a promotor of the company and thus, the respondent was only a dummy director of the company. She further alleged that she is not having any record of the book of the accounts of the company which are being maintained and recorded by SIS Group. Mr. Sunil S. Kakkar who is stated to be absconded since 20th June 2013. 6. In response to the present appeal, the ROC, Gujarat has filed its Representation affidavit dated 21.12.2018 and justified its action, by contending that the respondent assessee company did not respond to its statutory notice/ communication. Hence, its name was struck off. 7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atter has been examined and it is clarified that as per para 4(v) of the General Circular No. 16/2017 dt 29.12.2017, which states "In the event of defaulting companies whose names have been removed from the register of companies under section 248 of the Act and which have filed applications for revival under section 252 of the Act up to the date of this scheme, the Director's DIN shall be re-activated only NCLT order of revival subject to the company having filing of all overdue documents". It, is therefore, hereby directed that in such cases the Registrar(s) of Companies shall raise a ticket through Change Requirement Form (CRF) on MCA21 portal along with copy of NCLT order and E-governance shall activate DIN of the directors of such struck off companies that have been revived through NCLT to file e-CODS, 2018. However, the directors whose DINs are proposed to be activated through CRF should not be directors on any other company which has been struck off under section 248(1) of the Act (other than the one revived through NCLT order as mentioned in CRF). This may be ensured by the ROC before raising CRF with E-governance. (3) Further, the Registrar(s) of Companies are directe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(7) of the Companies Act, 2013 which speaks: "The liability, if any, of every director, manager or other officer who was exercising any power of management, and of every number of the company dissolved under subsection (5), shall continue and may be enforced as if the company had not been dissolved." 15. In addition to the above, the relevant provisions of Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rule, 2016 provides necessary instruction and criteria for removal of the name of companies. The proviso of the Rule 3(1) provides such that in the case of following categories of companies its name shall not be removed from the register of companies. The relevant extract of the proviso of the Rule 4 is reproduced here in below: "(iii) vanishing companies; (iv) companies where inspection or investigation is ordered and being earned out or actions on such order are yet to be taken up or were completed but prosecutions arising out of such inspection or investigation are pending in the Court; (v) companies where notices under section 234 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or section 206 or section 207 of the Act have been issued by the Registrar o....