Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Registrar Of Companies Delhi

IN THE MATTER OF: Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, ...Appellants Circle 14(2), New Delhi

Versus

Registrar of Companies, Delhi & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellants: Mr. Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Rishabh Nangia, Jr. Standing Counsel, for Income Tax Department. For Respondents:

With

Company Appeal (AT) No. 47 of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, ...Appellant Circle 22(2), New Delhi

Versus

Registrar of Companies, Delhi & Ors. ...Respondent (Shiv Amrit Constructions Pvt. Ltd.)

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Rishabh Nangia, Jr. Standing Counsel, for Income Tax Department. For Respondent:

With

Company Appeal (AT) No. 52 of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF: Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), New Delhi ...Appellant -2-

Versus

Registrar of Companies, Delhi & Ors. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Rishabh Nangia, Jr. Standing Counsel, for Income Tax Department. For Respondent:

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

30.07.2025: Vide order dated 15.04.2025 the Respondents were directed

to be served through the publication in the Newspaper Statesman in English

language and one in vernacular in the newspaper having circulation in the

area where the respondents are residing or doing business/last known

addresses. An affidavit is filed by the Income Tax Officer on behalf of the

appellant along with the copies of the newspapers, Statesman, Delhi edition

dated 28.05.2025 as well as Jansatta Delhi edition dated 28.05.2025.

Considering the affidavit on record and copies of the publication, the

notices have been served. None appears on behalf of the Respondents today,

hence, they are proceeded against ex-parte.

Company Appeal (AT) No. 37 of 2025

This appeal is against an impugned order dated 14.10.2024 passed by

Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi whereby

CP No. 1210/252/ND/2018 was dismissed in default due to non-compliance of

the order dated 05.04.2022. It was stated in the impugned order even after two -3-

years, the appellant had failed to bring on record assessment order and the

demand notice.

2. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant such documents

as noted in the impugned order dt. 14.10.2024, were e-filed on 12.10.2024

itself and on 14.10.2024, the counsel for the appellant though tried to explain

the delay but was not heard and the impugned order was passed.

Subsequently, the appellant filed an application, bearing Restoration

Application No. 53 of 2024, but it was also dismissed by the Ld. NCLT vide its

order dated 09.12.2024 as it was not convinced with the reasons.

3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has shown us Annexure (A-7) which

records the e-filing of additional documents filed by the appellant. It is

submitted the hard copy of the documents was filed but though could not be

brought on record. We have examined Annexure (A-7) which records the e-

filing of such documents. We have also examined Annexure (A-8) an order

under Section 271 (1) (b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as the notices of

demand of penalties as well as the assessment order and the penalty order. It

is submitted the cumulative demand raised against the company was

Rs.2,53,600/-.

4. Considering the submissions made and also the demand raised and also

considering the documents as noted in the impugned order were filed two days

prior to the impugned order, we set aside the order dated 14.10.2024 and

restore the CP No. 1210/252/ND/2018 to its original number. The appeal is,

thus, allowed. Pending applications are also disposed of. -4-

Company Appeal (AT) No. 47 of 2025

This appeal is against an impugned order dated 04.11.2024 passed by

Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi in CP No. 250/252/ND/2023

whereby due to absence of the appellant to appear on the said date and upon

failure of the appellant to file a copy of subsequent order and demand notice

despite several opportunities, the petition was dismissed for non-compliance

and non-appearance.

2. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant the documents

as are noted in the impugned order dated 04.11.2024 were e-filed way back on

23.10.2024 though inadvertently were not on record and the cumulative

demand against the company in the present case is around Rs. 69,95,760/-.

Further the reason of absence, as submitted by the Ld. Counsel for appellant,

the appellant on the said day i.e. 04.11.2024 could not attend the matter due

to clash of dates before the Ld. NCLT as well as before the Delhi High Court

and hence the Ld. NCLT could not be apprised of the fact the documents were

already filed on 23.10.2024 itself were in record of the Ld. NCLT Registry.

3. Considering the above facts wherein documents as noted in the

impugned order were already filed and the reason for absence of the counsel

has been duly explained in the appeal and also considering the cumulative

demand raised being on a higher side, it would be appropriate if we set aside

the impugned order dated 04.11.2024 and restore the CP No.

250/252/ND/2023 to its original number. The appeal is, thus, allowed.

Pending applications are also disposed of.

-5-

Company Appeal (AT) No. 52 of 2025

This appeal is against an impugned order dated 04.11.2024 passed by

Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi in CP No. 1126/252/ND/2017

whereby because of the non-appearance of the appellant and non-compliance

of the orders dated 04.03.2024 and 29.04.2024 for filing certain documents,

the CP No. 1126/252/ND/2017 was dismissed for non-prosecution and non-

compliance.

2. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant the documents

as were required vide orders dated 04.03.2024 and 29.04.2024 were filed way

back on 02.03.2024 and the appeal against the striking off order was already

on record. It is submitted as the counsel for the appellant was not present on

the said day, hence, the appellant could not explain its position and the

impugned order was passed. The non-appearance of the Counsel for the

appellant is duly explained in the appeal stating inter alia when the matter was

taken up by the Ld. NCLT on 04.11.2024, the counsel for the appellant could

not enter appearance as was in the matter before the High Court of Delhi and

consequently the appeal filed against the striking off order was dismissed by

the Ld. NCLT.

3. Considering the facts and submissions wherein the documents as noted

in orders dated 04.03.2024 and 29.04.2024 of the Ld. NCLT were already on

record on 04.11.2024 and also considering the fact the cumulative demand

raised was Rs. 1,54,775/ - against the company, it would be appropriate if we -6-

set aside the impugned order dated 04.11.2024 and restore the CP No.

1126/252/ND/2017 to its original no. The appeal is, thus, allowed. Pending

applications are also disposed of.

[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical)

SA/MD

Company Appeal (AT) Nos. 37, 47 & 52 of 2025