← 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

Yeshoda Nagaraju Likith(Late) (Legal Representative by Shri. Nagaraju R), Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 30/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Nararaju R (Legal Representative), Vs. Ito, Smt. Yeshoda Nagaraju Likith (Late), Ward – 3(2)(1), No.30, 10Th Cross, 2Nd Main, Bengaluru. Magadi Road, Agrahara Dasarahalli, Bengaluru – 560 079. Pan : Alnpl 6730 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Koushik M, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Koushik M, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 250Section 69A

TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Nararaju R (Legal Representative), Vs. ITO, Smt. Yeshoda Nagaraju Likith (Late), Ward – 3(2)(1), No.30, 10TH Cross, 2nd Main, Bengaluru. Magadi Road, Agrahara Dasarahalli, Bengaluru ... critically ill during the proceeding before the First Appellate Authority and had died. It was stated that present appeal has been filed by the legal representative of the assessee. It was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity may be provided to the legal representative

Baljeevan Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exem. Ward 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1872/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1872/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Bal Jeevan Trust बिधम/ Ito (E), Ward-1(1) A/14, Sterling Apartments, Piramal Chamber, Lal Vs. Peddar Road, Mumbai- Baug, Parel, Mumbai- 400026. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb2973M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri J. D. Mistri Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 15.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Not Allowing The Accumulation Of Rs.30 Lakhs As Per Section 11(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Read With Rule 17 Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter “The Rules”).

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12A

clarified and stated that the money in question would only be used for the purpose of making payments to the members or their legal representatives in case of their death, retirement or permanent disability. The Tribunal in the impugned order has also referred to the scheme floated by the respondent