Topline Comtech Pvt Ltd vs Income Tax Officer Ward 25(3)

Topline Comtech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 25(3), new Delhi & Anr. ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhiesumat Gupta, Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr. Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Rishabh Nangia, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Jr. Standing Counsels. Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

13.02.2025: This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated

21.10.2024 passed by the Ld. NCLT in Company Appeal No.

374/252/ND/2020.

2. Admittedly, the company's name was struck of vide an order dated

30.06.2017 by the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana. The said

order is annexed as Annexure-P2 in this appeal. The appeal was filed by the

Respondent herein/Income Tax Department invoking Section 252(1) read

with Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, for restoration of the name

of the Appellant company, M/s. Topline Comtech Pvt. Ltd., in the register of

Registrar of Companies, as maintained by Respondent No. 2 herein.

3. The impugned order was passed on the premise there being

recoveries/outstanding demand of Rs. 6,69,910/- against the Appellant -2-

company, calculated for the assessment year 2012-13 and a demand notice

dated 30.11.2019 was also sent for such assessment year 2012-13.

4. It was contention of the Income Tax Department if the name of the

Appellant company is not restored, it shall seriously affect the recovery of tax

liabilities of the Appellant company.

5. The grievance of the Appellants is without giving them any opportunity

of being heard, the said appeal Company Appeal No. 374/252/ND/2020 was

allowed by the impugned order. However, on perusal of the impugned order,

we find para 8 records the appellants despite notice and paper publication

have not appeared before the Ld. NCLT. The Learned Counsel for the

Appellant though has shown us two orders dated 08.12.2023 and 08.04.2024

which records the reply was filed by the Appellants herein and rather a date

was given to the Income Tax Department to file its rejoinder, but admittedly

the presence of the Appellant's Counsel was not recorded in both these orders.

In any case, we have also perused the reply filed by the Respondents No. 2 to

4 before the Ld. NCLT to the appeal filed by the department, wherein they had

not denied assessment order and demand notice but claimed it being beyond

limitation.

6. Thus, in these circumstances, where the appellants failed to appear and

did not dispute raising of such alleged demand, we see no reason why

impugned order be set aside. Lastly it was argued by the appellants they were

present on dates but their presence was inadvertently not recorded by the Ld.

NCLT. We disagree as there exists a presumption of correctness of orders

passed.

-3-

7. In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed. All pending

application(s) are disposed of.

[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical)

[Mr. Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)

R.N./Manu