← All Phrases

“legal representative”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(29)662 judgments

The decision most relied on for legal representative is 2 CIT v. Indrajit Singh Suri (33 Taxmann.com 281), cited in 100 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on legal representative

2 CIT v. Indrajit Singh Suri
33 Taxmann.com 281 · 2013 · High Court
100
citing judgments

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 147/148 against legal representatives of a deceased assessee requires a demonstrable 'reason to believe' that income escaped assessment, often based on third-party information such as alleged accommodation entries.

Savita Kapila v. ACIT
118 Taxmann.com 46 · 2020 · High Court
98
citing judgments

There is no legal requirement for a legal representative to report an assessee's death to the income tax department; consequently, a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 to a deceased person is invalid as it lacks proper jurisdiction.

Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. ITO
101 Taxmann.com 362 · 2019 · High Court
46
citing judgments

A notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is a jurisdictional notice and a condition precedent for reassessment. Such a notice issued against a deceased person is valid if the legal representative submits to the Assessing Officer without raising any objection.

CIT v. Amarchand N. Shroff
48 ITR 59 · 1963 · Supreme Court
40
citing judgments

Assessment proceedings initiated against a deceased person are void. Once an assessee dies, assessment proceedings can only continue in the name of their legal representative, to the extent of the deceased's estate.

202 ITR 932, CIT v. Durgawati
31 ITR 603 · 1957 · High Court
36
citing judgments

The same income cannot be assessed substantively in multiple hands. However, this principle does not prevent a single consolidated assessment order for multiple legal representatives.

CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh
219 ITR 737 · 1996 · Supreme Court
36
citing judgments

A procedural defect in serving notices, such as issuing them after the assessee's death without proper service on legal representatives, can invalidate reassessment proceedings and render assessment orders void. However, an omission or defect in serving notices does not erase a tax liability created by substantive provisions, though it may render an order irregular.

Rajender Kumar Sehgal v. ITO
260 Taxmann 412 · 2019 · High Court
25
citing judgments

A notice issued to a deceased assessee or their legal representatives beyond the period of limitation is without jurisdiction and cannot be saved by Section 292B.

ITO Ward 1(3)(7), Surat v. Durlabhbhai Kanubhai Rajpara
114 Taxmann.com 482 · 2020 · Supreme Court
24
citing judgments

An assessment or reassessment proceeding initiated or continued against a deceased person after their demise is illegal and void ab initio, as no valid notice can be issued to a dead individual.

Judgments citing legal representative

Vodafone Idea Ltd (Earlier Known As Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd Which Merged With Idea Cellular Ltd and Now Known As Vodafone Idea Ltd), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-78(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 37/DEL/2023[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2024AY 2012-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Earlier Known As Vs Acit, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.) Circle-78(1), A-19, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Area, New Delhi,. Sarita Vihar, New Delhi – 110 020. Pan: Aaacb2100P Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Earlier Circle-78(1), Known As Vodafone Mobile New Delhi,. Services Ltd.) A-19, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Area, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi – 110 020. Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate & Shri Vibhu Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr & Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR &
Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

independently owned business entity and this Agreement does not make the FRANCHISEE, its employees, associates or agents as employees, agents or legal representatives of BML for any purpose whatsoever. The FRANCHISEE has no express or implied right or authority to assume or to undertake any obligation in respect ... bind BML in any manner. In case, the FRANCHISEE, its employees, associates or agents hold out as employees, agents, or legal representatives of BML, the FRANCHISEE shall forthwith upon demand make good any/all loss, cost, damages, including consequential loss, suffered by BML on this account. 16.2 It is understood that

ACIT, Circle-78(1), New Delhi vs. Vodafone Mobile Services, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 137/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Earlier Known As Vs Acit, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.) Circle-78(1), A-19, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Area, New Delhi,. Sarita Vihar, New Delhi – 110 020. Pan: Aaacb2100P Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Earlier Circle-78(1), Known As Vodafone Mobile New Delhi,. Services Ltd.) A-19, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Area, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi – 110 020. Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate & Shri Vibhu Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr & Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR &
Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

independently owned business entity and this Agreement does not make the FRANCHISEE, its employees, associates or agents as employees, agents or legal representatives of BML for any purpose whatsoever. The FRANCHISEE has no express or implied right or authority to assume or to undertake any obligation in respect ... bind BML in any manner. In case, the FRANCHISEE, its employees, associates or agents hold out as employees, agents, or legal representatives of BML, the FRANCHISEE shall forthwith upon demand make good any/all loss, cost, damages, including consequential loss, suffered by BML on this account. 16.2 It is understood that