Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal v. ITO (2023) 451 ITR 100 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Assessment-Company struck off Register and restoration of registration subsequently-Company deemed to be in existence even during the period when it was struck off Register-Petition being not bonafide, the petitioner was directed to deposit the Cost of Rs.50000 with the Delhi High Court Legal Services committee. [S. 143(3), Companies Act, 2013, S. 252(3), 248]

A writ petition was filed to quash the notice dated March 28, 2019, issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2012-13 on the ground that the notice was null and void, as it had been issued in the name of a company, which had been struck off the register of companies. By order dated September 25, 2019, the National Company Law Tribunal, allowed the petition filed by the Income-tax Department under section 252 of the Act, for restoration of the name of the company in the register of companies. The Department contended that since the company now stood restored, the writ petition which was premised on the sole ground that the notice was issued in the name of a struck-off company, did not survive and the petition had become infructuous.  Dismissing the writ petition, that the company had admittedly been restored and under section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, the company would be deemed to not have been struck off from the register of companies at all. Accordingly, the notice dated March 28, 2019, was valid. Court also held that the petition being not bonafide, the petitioner  was directed to deposit the Cost of Rs.50000  with the Delhi High Court Legal Services committee  (AY.2012-13)