MY LIFE SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI V. ITO WARD 17(4), NEW DELHI

MA 247/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves My Life Securities Private Limited, which faced an assessment order from the ITO, Ward 17(4), New Delhi, for the assessment year 2012-13. The company had been struck off from the Registrar of Companies, and the appeal was initially dismissed by the Tribunal on the grounds that the directors of a struck-off company lacked the authority to file or pursue an appeal. The Tribunal's decision was based on the procedural deficiencies and the legal standing of the directors post-strike off. However, the company sought to recall this decision, arguing that the dismissal without proper representation and notice was unjust and against the principles of Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013, which allows for the revival of struck-off companies.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792458 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Companies Act, 2013, Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013, Section 254(2) of the Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KRISHNA K. RAMAWAT
• Assessee Lawyers: NITIN GULATI

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘FRIDAY-E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.No. 247/Del/2025 In ITA no. 609/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 My Life Securities Private Limited, c-1/10, LGF, West Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi - 34 [PAN:- AAHCM3324R] Vs ITO, WARD 17(4), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Nitin Gulati, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. DR. Date of hearing: 05/12/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 05/12/2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This miscellaneous application has been moved by the assessee to recall the order of this Tribunal dated 15.01.2025 in ITA No. 609/Del/2022 pertaining to A.Y.2012-13 wherein, it has been held as under:- “7. The assessment order has been statedly passed on a non- existent company. No intimation appears to have been given to the Assessing Officer of the fact of the ‘strike off’. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and Tribunal by the director of the company. In the ground of the appeal, the assessee has stated that assessment against a company that had already been Printed from counselvise.com 2 struck off was not valid. When, the company was struck off, than the director has no authority to file the appeal. It is not shown as to how such a director which company has been struck off have derived authority in law to file or pursue appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on behalf of a ‘struck’ off company. The entire first appellate proceeding is thus vitiated and rendered non est. Perusal from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) reveals that no information of the ‘struck off’ of the company was given to the Ld. CIT(A). If the company struck off, then the department has the remedy to initiate the process of revival under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 within in a stipulated time frame. 9. In view of such glaring deficiencies, no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the present proceedings in the present form. Therefore, the right course, to our mind, will be to consign the present appeal to the records. The assessee company shall be liberty to revive the appeal an opportune time as and when the circumstances may warrant. 10. In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the appeal of the appeal arising from defective and incompetent appeal placed before the Ld. CIT(A) in limine.” 2. The contention of the assessee that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on the ground that company was struck off from the Registrar of Companies and ex-directors could not have proceeded with First Appellate proceedings and this fact was not brought on record during the assessment proceedings. It was the further contention that no one represented the assessee during the hearing set by the Tribunal. It was further submitted that no notice was received to the assessee for hearing. It is also submitted that appeal was heard and clarification sought by the Printed from counselvise.com 3 bench, also submitted by the Ld. AR. The case was re- fixed and no notice of the date fixed received to the assessee. It was further submitted that the appeal was filed by the director of the company to challenge any order passed in breach of settled law and to prevent the miscarriage of justice. Dismissing the appeal without affording an opportunity to restore the company, which the department has apparently already initiated, defeats the very object of Section 252 of the Companies Act, settled judicial precedents and steps on the rights of the ex-director to defend their actions. It was submitted that the AO was aware of the strike off and initiated revival proceedings. It was further submitted that the non- representation of the assessee in the hearing does not warrant the case to be dismissed. In view of above aforesaid contentions, it is requested to recall the tribunal’s order dated 15.01.2025. 3. The Ld. DR strongly objected the application and submitted that under Section 254(2) of the Act the apparent mistake of the fact may be rectified, but in this case the assessee wants to review the order of the Tribunal which is not permissible as per law. 4. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the contents of the miscellaneous application and the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee made before us. Since no one attended the hearing in the corresponding appeal because assessee has no information of the date of Printed from counselvise.com 4 hearing, therefore the application filed by the assessee to recall the order of the Tribunal and restore the appeal to its original number is required to be allowed. We hold and direct accordingly. Accordingly, Registry is directed to fix the appeal for hearing on 22.01.2026, before a appropriate bench. 5. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms. 6. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.12.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *SR BHATANAGGAR* Date:- 09.12.2025 Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(Appeals) 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "