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
2622My Recent Articles
- Mere Expense Disallowance Cannot Trigger Section 271(1)(c) Penalty; ITAT Partly Allows AppealPremium
- ROC: Company and Directors Faces Penalty for Not Having Any Office at Registered Location of BusinessPremium
- ROC Imposes Penalty on Company and Director for Failure to Furnish Financial Statements for FY 2021-22
- ICSI Seeks Further Extension of CCFS 2026 Beyond August 31 Amid Technical Issues on MCA-21 Portal
- ICSI Submits Follow-Up Representation to MCA, Seeks Resolution of 17 Key Issues to Improve MCA-21 Compliance
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts
All Posts
Recent Posts
All Posts







