TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1464
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the name of the assessee, the notices for assessment were not duly served. 3. On the basis of aforesaid, the Bench has questioned the locus standi of Mr. Vinod Sablok, erstwhile Director, in filing this appeal. It was submitted that as this assessment order can give rise to liability on the erstwhile Director, thus erstwhile director has the locus standi to challenge the assessment order. During the course of herring, it also came up that neither the revenue nor the assessee company have filed application before the National Company Law Tribunal for the restoration of the name. 4. In this regard, his bench is of the considered view that once the name of assessee was struck from ROC then the assessee lost its juristic personality and consequently the erstwhile director would no more represent the assessee company, in any capacity what so ever. Admittedly no recovery under the impugned assessment is initiated against the assessee company or the directors by any proceedings under Section 179 of the Act. Where section 179 of the Act is in itself a charging section that creates liability on the directors for tax dues by a company then in the absence of any such proceedings the dir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecovery of tax in respect of nonresident from his assets and being relevant the same is reproduced below:- "Recovery of tax in respect of non-resident from his assets. 173. Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 161 or of section 167, where the person entitled to the income referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 9 is a non-resident, the tax chargeable thereon, whether in his name or in the name of his agent who is liable as a representative assessee, may be recovered by deduction under any of the provisions of Chapter XVII-B and any arrears of tax may be recovered also in accordance with the provisions of this Act from any assets of the non-resident which are, or may at any time come, within India." 24.3 Then, most important is the relevancy of provision of section 179 of the Act, which provides for liability of directors of a private company as follows:- Liability of directors of private company . 179. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), where any tax due from a private company in respect of any income of any previous year or from any other company in respect ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vs. M/s Zeus Impex Pvt. Ltd., ITA. No. 375 to 379/Del/2022 order dated 13.05.2024 can be relied wherein an appeal filed by the Revenue itself was also not considered maintainable for the reason that before the CIT(A), the appeal was filed by a former director of a company whose name was struck off. The coordinate Bench had considered the Revenue's appeal to be arising out of "defective and incompetent appeal placed before CIT(A)" and the Cross Objections of the assessee was dismissed being filed by former director being unauthorized to file the memo. 26. The second issue before us is also somehow covered against the erstwhile company and in this context, the issue has been considered by the coordinate Bench at Delhi in the case of Dwarka Portfolio (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2022) 139 taxmann.com 477 (Delhi-Trib.) wherein one of us, i.e., the ld. Accountant Member was also on the Bench and it was held that the appeal filed on behalf of the company whose name is struck off is maintainable and the conclusion of the Bench in para 24 being relevant is reproduced below:- "24. CONCLUSION:- (i). Though the Assessee company has been struck off under Section 248 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re in regard to companies which were dissolved pursuant to the orders of Hon'ble High Courts in Company Petition or the assessee had become non- existing entity, due to amalgamation of the company. However, here is the case where admittedly the name of directors of the assessee company were disqualified by ROC u/s 164(2) of the Companies Act with effect from 01.11.2016 till 31.10.2021 leading to struck off of the name of company from Register of Companies and consequential dissolution with effect from 07.06.2017 vide order dated 30.06.2017. The same was in pursuant of powers under sub section 5 of section 248 of the Companies Act r.w.r. 3 and 9 of the Companies (removal of names of companies from Register of Companies) Rules, 2016. This dissolution after struck off the name of company by Register of Companies has to be distinguished with dissolution pursuant to orders of Hon'ble High Court or amalgamation of the Companies. 9. The ld. AO had approached the NCLT for restoration of the name of company as the reassessment proceedings were pending before him which were getting time barred on 31.12.2018. The restoration of name of the company will have a retrospective ef....