M/S.Espin Infosysytem Private Limited vs The Registrara Of Company & Ors

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.46/2021 (IA No.551/2021) In the matter of: M/S. ESPIN INFOSYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, Represented by its member Doria Tharsius Lissa Jane, No. F-3, Hari's Paradise 337, Arcot Road, Trustpuram Kodambakkam, Chennai - 600 024. ... APPELLANT

Vs

THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, Block No. 6, B wing, 2nd Floor, Sastri Bhawan, 26, Haddows Road, Chennai - 600 034. ... RESPONDENT NO.1

INCOME TAX OFFICER, Non-Corp Ward 1(3) CHE, Aayakar Bhawan, 121 MG Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. ... RESPONDENT NO.2 Present : For Appellant : Mr. Rohan Rajasekaran, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Avinash Krishnan Ravi, Advocate for R1 Mr. Raj Kumar Jhabakh, Advocate for R2

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) 20.08.2026:

[Per: Justice N. Seshasayee, Member (Judicial)]

1) This appeal is preferred challenging an order of the learned NCLT in CP

No.1405/2019 which came to be filed under Section 252 (3) of the Companies

Act, challenging the proceedings of the 1st respondent, the RoC, dated

09.08.2018.

Comp App (AT) (CH) No.46/2021 Page 1 of 3

2) Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

appellant company was registered on 01.04.2004 and it is into IT enabled

services, that it had filed its returns promptly to the 1st respondent up to 2012 -

2013. Thereafter these returns were not filed rather inadvertently. It is in this

backdrop on 04.06.2018, the 1st respondent issued a show cause notice as to why

the company's name should not be struck off the register. Eventually, on

09.08.2018, it was so struck off.

3) The appellant would now move the NCLT under Section 252 and the learned

Tribunal dismissed his appeal, essentially on the ground that the appellant has not

produced necessary documents to establish that it is operational. This order is

now under challenge.

4) The learned counsel for the appellant would add that the appellant has

produced financial statement of the company for the years 2014 - 2015 to 2017 -

2018. These documents would show that the appellant indeed had shown revenue

from its operation at around Rs.25 - 26 lakhs every year. He added that he has

also produced income tax returns for the assessment year 2018 - 2019, which

corresponds to the last financial statement the appellant has produced for the

previous year 2017 - 2018. The learned counsel concluded that these documents

were not adequately appreciated by the learned Tribunal whereas they show that

the appellant indeed has been doing business and it is still operational.

Comp App (AT) (CH) No.46/2021 Page 2 of 3

5) The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, the Income Tax Department,

submitted that the appellant has also filed the income tax returns for the

assessment year 2018 - 2019 as well. The income tax returns which has been filed

show that the though the revenue from operation runs to lakhs, the taxable income

is not much. But then it is an aspect which should concern the Income Tax

Department.

6) After carefully appraising ourselves of the materials available before us we

consider that the impugned order passed by the learned NCLT is required to be

set aside. The company appeal is allowed.

[Justice N. Seshasayee] Member (Judicial)

[Jatindranath Swain] Member (Technical)

AR/MS/AK

Comp App (AT) (CH) No.46/2021 Page 3 of 3