TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 469
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m NCLT No.9 is filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Aaytan Tower, Civil Lines, Jalandhar (Punjab)- 144001 (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') under Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') seeking restoration of the name of M/s Eagle Eye Stocks and Shares Pvt. Ltd., respondent No.2, (hereinafter referred to as 'respondentcompany'). The CIN of the respondent-company is U65991PB2007PTC031228. As per the master data of the respondentcompany, as at Annexure A-3, the company was incorporated on 22.06.2007. The registered address of the respondent-company is at 678, Urban Estate, Jalandhar PB 144001, in the State of Punjab and therefore, the matter lies within the terr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 04.06.2018, removed the name of respondent no.2-company from the Register of Companies maintained by it, vide Notification dated 04.06.2018, as per ROC Report, filed vide Diary No.5219 dated 30.09.2019. 6. It is stated that a search and seizure operation under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was carried out at the registered address of the respondent No.2-company. Copy of the warrant of authorization for search under the Income Tax Act, 1961, is appended with the petition as Annexure A-7. It is further submitted that pursuant to such search and seizure operation, proceedings under Section 152A of the Income Tax Act, are yet to be initiated for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2017-18 and also under Section 142(1) of the Income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om the Register of Companies, maintained by respondent No.1 and pursuant to which the name of respondent No.2-company was struck off, vide notification dated 04.06.2018. It has been prayed that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to file all the statutory documents along with the requisite as well as additional fee as prescribed in the Rules. 12. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submitted that the respondents have no objection if the company petition is allowed. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-Income Tax Department and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and have also perused the record. 14. The relevant Section 252(1) of the Act is as follows:- (1) Any person agg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e learned counsel for the petitioner-Income Tax Department submitted that the Department is unable to conduct any further proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the present 'inactive' status of respondent No.2-company and has filed this appeal accordingly. 17. The learned counsel for the Income Tax Department also laid emphasis on the provision of Section 248(6) of the Act and contended that the procedure prescribed under the provisions was not followed. Section 248(6) of the Act reads as under:- "(6) The Registrar, before passing an order under sub-section (5), shall satisfy himself that sufficient provision has been made for the realisation of all amount due to the company and for the payment or discharge of its liabilities....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petition as Annexure A-4. 19. It is observed that the name of Respondent No.2-company was struck off pursuant to filing of Form STK-2 before respondent No.1-ROC. It is also contended by the petitioner that after the search and seizure operation was conducted and opportunity was given by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation) to respondent No.2 to produce the books of accounts/bills/vouchers etc., which were not declared in Schedule BA in the return of income filed and non-disclosure of account in the return of income, the source of credits in bank account remained unexplained and taxable under Section 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but no explanation was given by the respondent No.2. It is also observed that all....