ROC Penalises Company and Directors for Non-Filing of Consolidated Financial Statements:

The ROC has imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.76 lakh on the company and its two directors for failing to file mandatory Consolidated Financial Statements under Section 137 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Rs. 1.76 Lakh Penalty Imposed for AOC-4 CFS Non-Compliance

ROC Penalises Company and Directors for Non-Filing of Consolidated Financial Statements
The Registrar of Companies (ROC), Gwalior, has issued an order of adjudication dated March 02, 2026, imposing a penalty amounting to Rs. 1.76 lakh on a company named Xtranet Technologies Limited and its two directors under Section 454 of the Companies Act 2013, for non-compliance with Section 137 of the Companies Act, 2013.
The disputed company had voluntarily furnished an Application of Adjudication dated September 23, 2025, accepting the non-compliance committed by it under Section 137 of the Companies Act, 2013, read with Rule 12 of the Companies (Accounts) Rules, 2014. The application was furnished using e-Form GNL-1 (SRN: AB7190596). The company accepted that it was legally required to prepare Consolidated Financial Statements (CFS) for itself and its subsidiary in the same format as its own financial statements in Form AOC-4 CFS, along with the prescribed fees with the Registrar of Companies (ROC) for the financial year 2022-23. At the time of furnishing the same form, in response to the question, 'Are consolidated financial statements required or not?', the company incorrectly selected 'No'.
Because of this mistake, the Consolidated Financial Statements were not attached, and Form AOC-4 CFS was not filed. However, the company claimed that the mistake was not intentionally committed and was a genuine mistake.
Considering the mistake accepted by the company, the ROC imposed a penalty amounting to Rs. 76,200 on the company, Xtranet Technologies Limited, and Rs. 1 lakh on its two directors, Jogendrapal Singh Alagh and Sukhbir Singh Kukreja (Rs. 50,000 on each director). The company has been awarded a time period of 90 days to rectify 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].
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
2420My Recent Articles
- Bona Fide Mistake in ITR Cannot Deny Section 10(10B) Exemption on BSNL VRS Compensation, Holds ITATPremium
- ITAT Grants Taxpayer a Final Opportunity to Explain Rs 2.27 Crore Cash Deposits Under Section 69APremium
- ITAT Restores Appeals for Fresh Consideration After NFAC Denied Request of Personal Hearing Through Video ConferencingPremium
- ITAT Condones 97-Day Delay, Restores Appeal After CIT(A) Sent Hearing Notices to Wrong Email AddressPremium
- MCA Appoints Justice (Retd.) Yogesh Khanna as Officiating Chairperson of NCLAT for Three Months
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








