ROC Levies Rs. 4 Lakh Penalty on Company and Directors for Address Non-Compliance in Form InC-22A:

ROC Kanpur fines the company Rs. 1 lakh and its three directors Rs. 3 lakh for non-compliance with the Companies Act provisions on office address disclosure.
Incomplete Address in Form InC-22A Results in Rs. 4 Lakh Penalty

ROC Levies Rs. 4 Lakh Penalty on Company and Directors for Address Non-Compliance in Form InC-22A
ROC (Registrar of Companies) Kanpur has released an order of adjudication imposing a penalty amounting to Rs. 1 lakh on a company named Amrul India Nidhi Limited and Rs. 3 lakh on its three directors named Shakil Ahmad, Sarvari Bano, and Riyaj Ahmad (Rs. 1 lakh on each director). The penalty has been imposed under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 2013, for violation of Section 12(8) of the Act.
In conclusion to a meeting held on April 10, 2020, the Regional Directors (RDs) were instructed to carry out an in-depth examination of the sudden increase in Nidhi Companies in Kanpur, Jaipur, and Patna and submit the report for the same. These directions have been passed by the Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA).
As a result of these directions, ROC Kanpur identified the present company in question suo moto as one of the Nidhi Companies requiring examination. On examination, the Inquiry Officers (IO) noted that the company had furnished Form InC-22A, but the photographs attached to the form did not include the complete address on the name board fixed at the registered office. As per the law, the company is required to disclose its full address. Since the company failed to comply with the provision of Section 12(3)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, it is liable for a penal action under Section 12(8) of the Act. The Inquiry Officer mentioned the non-compliance in its Inquiry Report dated June 09, 2022.
Later, the Office of the Director General of Corporate Affairs (DGCoA), through its letter dated November 10, 2023, directed that penal action be initiated for this non-compliance. The company and its directors have been given a time period of 90 days from receiving the order to correct the default and pay the imposed penalty amount.
About Author

Saloni Kumari
Content Writer
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
2389My Recent Articles
- ITAT Remands Section 69 Unexplained Cash Credit Addition After Bank Statement Was Not ExaminedPremium
- ITAT Remands Transfer Pricing Dispute: DRP to Reassess Comparables and Working Capital AdjustmentPremium
- CBDT Notifies TDS Exemption on Aircraft Lease Payments to IFSC Units Under 20-Year Tax Deduction Scheme Premium
- CBDT Grants TDS Exemption On Ship Leasing Payments To IFSC Units Under 20-Year Tax Deduction SchemePremium
- ITAT Remands Case to CIT(A) After Admitting Crucial Sale Deed as Additional Evidence
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








