AA Erred in Rejecting Co.’s Appeal for Restoration As It Had Assets and Filed ITRs Indicating Ongoing Business | NCLAT

Case Details: Shree Radhey Mines (P.) Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies - [2023] 156 taxmann.com 119 (NCLAT-New Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Anant Bijay Singh, Judicial Member & Ajai Das Mehrotra, Technical Member
  • Ashish Middha, Adv. for the Appellant.
  • B. Rama Ambedkar, AROC for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the RoC struck off the name of the appellant company from the register of companies on the grounds that the appellant company had not filed its financial statements and Annual Returns and the company was non-operational.

The appellant company filed an appeal under section 252 before NCLT challenging striking off its name from the register of companies by RoC and seeking restoration of its name in the register of companies, however, NCLT rejected same.

The appellant filed the instant appeal on the ground that the NCLT had failed to appreciate that as per section 248 and rule 3 of the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from Register of Companies) Rules, 2016, the respondent had not issued notices to the company and all its directors before striking off the name of the company.

NCLAT Held

The NCLAT noted that respondent No. 2-Income Tax Authorities had filed its reply, stating that the appellant company had been regularly filing its Income Tax Returns and no other proceedings were pending as per the ITBA portal. In view of the fact that the appellant company had substantial movable as well as immovable assets, it could not be said that the appellant company was not carrying on any business or operations, therefore, order passed by NCLT and RoC was not sustainable in law.

List of Cases Reviewed

• • Shri Radhey Mines (P.) Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies [2023] 156 taxmann.com 118 (NCLT – New Delhi) (para 11) affirmed [See Annex].