What happens if AOC 4 is not filed within 30 days of AGM?

What happens if AOC 4 is not filed within 30 days of AGM?. If the financial statements (AOC-4) are filed after 30 days from the date of AGM with the MCA, then this would be considered as a violation of section 137 of the Companies Act 2013. Any violation of this section will result in penalties for both company and its officers under section 137 (3) of the Act.
Annual Filling is a mandatory compliance for any company irrespective of their size, nature and location. As we can observe in this MCA adjudication order in which a company has failed to file a copy of financial statement with the ROC.
Section 137 of the Companies Act, 2013 mandates that every company must file a copy of its financial statements, including consolidated financial statements (if applicable), along with the necessary documents with the Registrar of Companies (ROC) within thirty days of its annual general meeting (AGM). If the financial statements are not adopted at the AGM, they must still be filed as provisional documents within the same timeframe, with the final adopted version to be submitted after an adjourned AGM.
Applicable Provisions
This MCA adjudication order involves an appeal under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, concerning the adjudication of penalties. The relevant rules include the Companies (Adjudication of Penalties) Rules, 2014. The matter was brought before the Regional Director (WR), Mumbai, for consideration.
Facts of the Case with ROC and RD
In Lokasa Handicraft Jewellary Exports Limited & ORS, concerned ROC had passed adjudication order dated 05/12/2023 for violation of section 137 of the companies Act 2013.
The concerned ROC vide adjudication order dated 05/12/2023 held the company and its director, who have defaulted liable for penalty under section 137(3) of the Act from 31/10/2019 to 18/10/2020 for not filling financial statements within thirty days from the date of Annual General Meeting in pursuance of section 96 of the Act.
The Registrar of Companies (ROC) imposed penalties for non-compliance, leading the company to file an appeal before the Regional Director (RD) and an opportunity of being heard was given by the RD to appellants on 04/06/2024.The authorised representative have admitted the contravention of Section 137 of the companies Act 2013. The authorised representative further stated that he did not find any defect in ROC Adjudication Order dated 05/12/2023 but have applied on the ground of bad financial position of the company.
ROC Mumbai vide further letter dated 03/0/2024has concluded that the grounds of appeal relied by the applicant in their submission are not legally tenable.
Imposed Penalty
Considering all the facts, circumstances and all the submission made by the company, the adjudicating authority had imposed penalty on companies and officers for violation of section 137 of the Act.
Penalty u/s 137(3) of the companies Act, 2013 against the defaulters (First Default = Rs. 10,000. Continuing default = Rs100 day. Maximum Rs.2,00,000 in case of company and Rs 50,000 in case of officer in default and any other person)

No of days default

Penalty imposed on company/KMP

First Default

Default Continues

Total Penalty levied

Maximum penalty

354days

On Company

N. A

354*1000= 3,54,000

3,54,000

10,00,000

On 1st director

1,00,000

354*100=35,400

1,35,400

5,00,000

On 2nd director

1,00,000

354*100=35,400

1,35,400

5,00,000

On 3rd director

1,00,000

354*100=35,400

1,35,400

5,00,000

Reduction in Penalty, if any
Taking into consideration the adjudication order of the ROC, submission made by the appellants in their application, further report of ROC, dated 03/06/2024 and oral submission of the authorised representative of the company during the hearing, it is observed that:

There is no inherent defect in the adjudication order dated 05/12/2023

ROC Mumbai has imposed penalty as per Section 137(3) of the companies Act 2013

Any Benefit of Section 446B of Companies Act
Section 446B of the Companies Act, 2013 provides a significant relief mechanism for small companies and start-ups by reducing the penalty burden for certain non-compliances. Under this provision, if a small company or a start-up commits a default for which a penalty is prescribed under the Act, the penalty imposed shall not be more than half of the specified penalty, subject to a maximum limit. In this adjudication matter of Lokasa Handicraft Jewellary Exports Limited & ORS company being a public company does not fall under the purview of section 446B of the companies Act 2013.
Findings: -
The case of Lokasa Handicraft Jewellary Exports Limited & ORS highlights the importance of timely filing financial statements as required under Section 137 of the Companies Act, 2013. Failure to file the financial statements within the prescribed 30-day period after the Annual General Meeting resulted in significant penalties being imposed on the company and its directors.
Download MCA Adjucation Order

If the financial statements (AOC-4) are filed after 30 days from the date of AGM with the MCA, then this would be considered as a violation of section 137 of the Companies Act 2013. Any violation of this section will result in penalties for both company and its officers under section 137 (3) of the Act.

Annual Filling is a mandatory compliance for any company irrespective of their size, nature and location. As we can observe in this MCA adjudication order in which a company has failed to file a copy of financial statement with the ROC.

Section 137 of the Companies Act, 2013 mandates that every company must file a copy of its financial statements, including consolidated financial statements (if applicable), along with the necessary documents with the Registrar of Companies (ROC) within thirty days of its annual general meeting (AGM). If the financial statements are not adopted at the AGM, they must still be filed as provisional documents within the same timeframe, with the final adopted version to be submitted after an adjourned AGM.

Applicable Provisions

This MCA adjudication order involves an appeal under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, concerning the adjudication of penalties. The relevant rules include the Companies (Adjudication of Penalties) Rules, 2014. The matter was brought before the Regional Director (WR), Mumbai, for consideration.

Facts of the Case with ROC and RD

In Lokasa Handicraft Jewellary Exports Limited & ORS, concerned ROC had passed adjudication order dated 05/12/2023 for violation of section 137 of the companies Act 2013.

The concerned ROC vide adjudication order dated 05/12/2023 held the company and its director, who have defaulted liable for penalty under section 137(3) of the Act from 31/10/2019 to 18/10/2020 for not filling financial statements within thirty days from the date of Annual General Meeting in pursuance of section 96 of the Act.

The Registrar of Companies (ROC) imposed penalties for non-compliance, leading the company to file an appeal before the Regional Director (RD) and an opportunity of being heard was given by the RD to appellants on 04/06/2024.The authorised representative have admitted the contravention of Section 137 of the companies Act 2013. The authorised representative further stated that he did not find any defect in ROC Adjudication Order dated 05/12/2023 but have applied on the ground of bad financial position of the company.

ROC Mumbai vide further letter dated 03/0/2024has concluded that the grounds of appeal relied by the applicant in their submission are not legally tenable.

Imposed Penalty

Considering all the facts, circumstances and all the submission made by the company, the adjudicating authority had imposed penalty on companies and officers for violation of section 137 of the Act.

Penalty u/s 137(3) of the companies Act, 2013 against the defaulters (First Default = Rs. 10,000. Continuing default = Rs100 day. Maximum Rs.2,00,000 in case of company and Rs 50,000 in case of officer in default and any other person)

No of days default	Penalty imposed on company/KMP	First Default	Default Continues	Total Penalty levied	Maximum penalty
354days	On Company	N. A	354*1000= 3,54,000	3,54,000	10,00,000
	On 1st director	1,00,000	354*100=35,400	1,35,400	5,00,000
	On 2nd director	1,00,000	354*100=35,400	1,35,400	5,00,000
	On 3rd director	1,00,000	354*100=35,400	1,35,400	5,00,000

Reduction in Penalty, if any

Taking into consideration the adjudication order of the ROC, submission made by the appellants in their application, further report of ROC, dated 03/06/2024 and oral submission of the authorised representative of the company during the hearing, it is observed that:

There is no inherent defect in the adjudication order dated 05/12/2023
ROC Mumbai has imposed penalty as per Section 137(3) of the companies Act 2013

Any Benefit of Section 446B of Companies Act

Section 446B of the Companies Act, 2013 provides a significant relief mechanism for small companies and start-ups by reducing the penalty burden for certain non-compliances. Under this provision, if a small company or a start-up commits a default for which a penalty is prescribed under the Act, the penalty imposed shall not be more than half of the specified penalty, subject to a maximum limit. In this adjudication matter of Lokasa Handicraft Jewellary Exports Limited & ORS company being a public company does not fall under the purview of section 446B of the companies Act 2013.

Findings: -

The case of Lokasa Handicraft Jewellary Exports Limited & ORS highlights the importance of timely filing financial statements as required under Section 137 of the Companies Act, 2013. Failure to file the financial statements within the prescribed 30-day period after the Annual General Meeting resulted in significant penalties being imposed on the company and its directors.