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

Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(3), 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. 40/252/ND/2025 filed by the Appellant/Income Tax

Department which was dismissed for non-compliance.

2. A bare perusal of the impugned order would show the Ld. NCLT vide

order dated 22.04.2025 had directed the appellant to file an affidavit of service

but the said order was not complied and as such the appeal was dismissed.

3. In this appeal, notice was directed to be issued to the Respondents. The

Registrar of Companies was served in the present appeal whereas other

Respondents could not be served. However, we directed vide order dated

28.10.2025 to serve the remaining Respondents through newspaper

publication in English newspaper having circulation in the area where -2-

Respondents reside and one in Vernacular newspaper published in the local

area.

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

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

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

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 since none has appeared on behalf of the Respondents, they are

proceeded ex-parte.

5. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant on 04.03.2025,

the Ld. NCLT had directed that the notice be served to the other Respondents

except the ROC and that the notice was though served upon all the

Respondents on 22.04.2025 but the affidavit of service could not be filed.

6. We have also gone through the Annexure-5 viz. proof of service to the

other Respondents dated 02.04.2025. The tracking report is also annexed.

7. It is submitted all the Respondents were served at the registered offices

of the company. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the appellant they sought

additional time to file affidavit of service but the Ld. NCLT did not accede to

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

the ground of failure to file the affidavit of service.

8. Considering the facts, the Income Tax Department has to recover an

amount of Rs. 2,29,39,558/- as per the documents filed with the appeal, and

thus it is argued in case the company is not restored to its original status, the -3-

Income Tax Department shall not be able to recover dues against the

company.

9. Hence for reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order dated

08.07.2025 and give further time to the appellant herein to file affidavit of

service before the Ld. NCLT within four weeks from today. The Appeal No.

40/252/ND/2025 be listed before the Ld. NCLT on 16.02.2026 for further

proceedings. This appeal is accordingly allowed. Pending application(s), I.A.

No. 5552 of 2025 is also disposed of.

[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical)

Ram N./Ravi R.