Income Tax Officer vs Registrar Of Companies (Diamond ...

Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(1), Delhi ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Registrar of Companies, Delhi & Ors. ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Punit Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Rishabh Nangia, Mr. Ashvini Kr. Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocates for ITD. For Respondents : None.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) 12.12.2025: None has appeared on behalf of Respondents. This appeal

is filed against an impugned order dated 08.07.2025 passed by the Ld. NCLT,

New Delhi in Appeal No. 52/252/ND/2025 filed by the Appellant/Income Tax

Department. The notice was directed to be served in the appeal to the

Respondents except Registrar of Companies (ROC). However, the notices

could not be delivered to the remaining Respondents and as such vide order

dated 28.10.2025, we directed to serve the remaining Respondents through

newspaper publication in English newspaper having circulation in the area

where Respondents reside and one in Vernacular newspaper published in the

local area.

2. An Affidavit of Service has been filed by the appellant stating inter alia

the publication is done in English newspaper "Financial Express", Delhi

Edition dated 20.11.2025 and also in Hindi newspaper "Jansatta", Delhi -2-

Edition dated 20.11.2025 to the remaining Respondents and the copies of

such publications have been filed along with the Affidavit. The Service is thus

complete and as none has appeared on behalf of the Respondents, they are

proceeded ex-parte.

3. Coming to the appeal, we note that on 24.02.2025, the Income Tax

Department had filed an appeal bearing Appeal No. 52/252/ND/2025 seeking

restoration of the name of the company M/s Diamond Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

whose name was struck off by the Registrar of Companies vide Form No. STK-

7 dated 29.10.2019.

4. On 04.03.2025 the Ld. NCLT had directed the notices be served upon

the Respondents, except the ROC who was already served. However, the said

notices could not be served upon other Respondents and thus on 22.04.2025,

the appellant sought permission to serve the remaining Respondents through

newspaper publication; which liberty was granted by the Ld. NCLT and the

appellant was directed to serve them through publication in two newspapers.

5. On 08.07.2025, when the matter was taken up before Bench -IV of the

Ld. NCLT, the Counsel for the appellant sought further time to serve the

Respondents through publication but the Ld. NCLT did not accede to the

prayer made by the appellant and consequently dismissed such appeal on the

ground of failure to serve the Respondents through publication in

newspapers.

6. It is the submission of Ld. Counsel for the appellant there was an

administrative delay on the part of the Department, hence the steps could not

be taken in time.

-3-

7. Considering the submissions there exist a liability upon the company,

as is evident from the assessment order, annexed as Annuxere-5 of this

appeal to an extent of Rs. 1,56,13,843/- as on 19.05.2023 and thus it is

argued in case the company is not restored to its original status, the Income

Tax Department shall not be able to recover dues against the company.

8. Thus in the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order dated

08.07.2025 by granting one more opportunity to the Income Tax Department

to serve the Respondents by newspaper publication as was directed by the Ld.

NCLT. The Appeal No. 52/252/ND/2025 be listed before the Ld. NCLT on

16.02.2026 for further proceedings. In the meanwhile, before the said date,

the Income Tax Department shall publish notices to the Respondents in the

newspapers stated above. This appeal is accordingly allowed. Pending

application(s), I.A. No. 5554 of 2025 is also disposed of.

[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical)

Ram N./Ravi R.