Supergold Properties Private Limited (successor of Aajivan Computers Private Limited) v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 14(4)(1), Mumbai & Ors.

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

Supergold Properties, identified as successor of Aajivan Computers, challenged reopening for AY 2017-18. The JAO issued the section 148A(b) notice on 12 March 2024, followed by the section 148A(d) order and section 148 notice on 24 April 2024.

Source: PDF pp.1–2, paragraphs 2–3 and caption

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

The Court applied Hexaware to the section 151A scheme and Kairos Properties to the preliminary section 148A stages. Both sides agreed that the section 148 proceedings were unsustainable under Hexaware; the petitioner also cited Nainraj Enterprises.

Source: PDF pp.5–6, paragraphs 5–7

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

The petition was allowed in terms of prayer (a), quashing the show-cause notice dated 12 March 2024, the order dated 24 April 2024 and the section 148 notice of that date.

Source: PDF pp.6–7, paragraph 8 and prayer (a)

4. OUTCOME

Rule was made absolute without costs. Other issues in the writ petition were expressly not answered because the Court disposed of it on non-compliance with section 151A.

Source: PDF p.7, paragraphs 9–10

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

Successor description is not a succession ruling

The caption identifies Supergold as Aajivan Computers’ successor, but the operative reasoning concerns faceless initiation. This judgment cannot be used to infer a separate holding on amalgamation, service upon a predecessor, or substantive successor liability.

Source: PDF pp.1–2, caption and paragraphs 2–4; p.7, paragraph 9

The identified documents define the relief

Prayer (a), adopted by the Court, lists the March show-cause notice and both April documents. That precise sequence is important when matching this ruling to the taxpayer’s file; the decision does not annul every assessment involving either named company.

Source: PDF p.7, paragraph 8 and prayer (a)

Kairos supplies the preliminary-stage connection

The Court used Kairos to include the section 148A notice and order within the section 151A scheme. The resulting relief rests on the initiation defect and leaves other grounds unresolved, rather than adjudicating the factual basis of escaped income.

Source: PDF pp.6–7, paragraphs 7–9