TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 814
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... its annual return and financial statement with the Registrar of Companies; d) the company failed to file its annual returns and financial statements with the Registrar of Companies for the FY 2011-12; e) on 04.07.2018 the Registrar of Companies issued a public notice in Form STK-5 inviting objections to the proposed strike off action. However, the Appellant could not notice the said public notice; f) on 05.09.2018 the Registrar of Companies struck off the Company's name from the Register of Companies due to non-compliance and published the notice in form STK-7; g) on 08.09.2023 the appellant filed an appeal under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 requesting the restoration of the company's name to the Register of Companies; h) on 11.10.2023 the Registrar of Companies submitted a report to the Tribunal; k) on 15.10.2024 impugned order was passed; hence this appeal; hence this appeal. 2. The impugned order was passed on the ground the period of limitation for filing the appeal was three years in the present case and not twenty years as is provided under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. Secondly the Ld. NCLT held there is no explanation as to why the an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts of the present case now, we find that what the Appellant has filed is an appeal under Section 252(3) whereas only an application and no appeal can be filed under the said provision. Moreover, the present case is not one where the name of the Company was struck off at the behest of its promoters/directors in the manner specified in Section 248(2) of the Act. As a matter of fact, this is a case where the name of the Company was struck off by the Respondent/RoC for non-compliance of the statutory requirements under Section 248(1) vide its order dated 05.09.2018. ln these circumstances, the instant appeal would in fact lie under Section 252(1) 'of the Act rather than Section 252(3) of the Act. 4.7 It is a well-settled legal proposition that quoting a wrong provision of law is not fatal to the appeal, if the power to pass such an order is available with the authorities/Court. Therefore, the present Appeal is treated as having been filed under Section 252(1 ) of the Act. However, we find that the Appeal has not been preferred within a period of three years from the date of order of the RoC, as per the limitation provided under Section 252(1) of the Act. The name of the Company....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Mansoor Ali Isani copies of bank accounts of Sh Tahir Isani reveal only debits of Rs.4,05,00,000/- (Rs.3,50,00,000 plus Rs.55,00,000) towards Pay Orders/DDs issued towards purchase of property while a sum of Rs.2,00,00,0001 was transferred from the Current Account of a -connected entity, namely, Elegance Properties Pvt. Ltd. whose name surprisingly does not appear in the list of unsecured creditors under the head "Long-term borrowings" in the audited financial statements of the Company. lt is also worth noting that even the name of Elegance Properties Pvt. Ltd. has been struck off from the Register of Companies maintained by the Respondent/RoC vide the same Public Notice dated 05.09.2018 (Form STK-7) published in the Official Gazette at Sr. No.37. AII this casts a shadow of serious doubt over the sources of funds used - for purchasing the property. This also explains why Annual Returns and financial statements of the Company were not filed with the Respondent/RoC as well as the Income tax Department in the normal course so as to escape scrutiny and investigation of sources of investment in property by the tax authorities. 4. We have heard the arguments advanced by both the couns....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anies Act, 2013 shall apply. 7. Thus on first limb we are of the considered opinion the appeal was filed within limitation before the Ld. NCLT. Now we come to the second limb of argument if it is just and equitable for us to revive the company. Admittedly the company owns a 36,022 sq mtrs land parcel in South Goa. The said land parcel was bought by the company on 24th November, 2008 for consideration of INR 6,05,00,000/-. The company intends to initiate and complete a real estate project over the said land which is evident from the main object of the Company as mentioned in its Memorandum of Association, reproduced as follows:- "To carry on business of developing, improving, building, refurbishing, renovating, operating, establishing, managing directly or indirectly any construction facilities, real estate projects, including port, roads, dams, airports, multiplexes, auditoriums, schools, colleges, educational institutions, hospitals, convention centers, leisure resorts." 8. Further, admittedly the company is not a shell company. For that matter, the Company did file its financial statement from its incorporation till 2012. The Respondent has struck off the company for non-fili....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aring the parties, going through the pleadings made on behalf of the parties and in view of the fact that the financial statements 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020 and Income Tax Return of the Appellant Company shows that the Appellant Company is having substantial movable as well as immovable assets. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Appellant Company is not carrying on any business or operations. Hence, we are of the view that the order passed by the NCLT, New Delhi as well as RoC, NCT Delhi & Haryana is not sustainable in law." 21. In Basant Kumar Berlia & Ors Vs. ROC; Company Appeal (AT) No.171 of 2018 this Tribunal held:- "30. We have noted that when the 1st respondent had issued Public Notice dated 7.4.2017 (Page 85) intimating the companies, including 2nd respondent, that their names of the companies would be struck off under Section 248(1) of Act, 2nd respondent was given 30 days' time from the date of publication of notice to send their objection to the ROC. 2nd respondent did not respond to the said notice. Thereafter, 1st respondent vide notice dated 30.6.2017 (Page87) struck off the name of the 2nd respondent from the register of companies. Now the....