← 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

Late Sh. Maha Singh Th. Legal Heir Bijender Singh, Sonipat vs. ITO, Ward - 3, Sonipat

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4568/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandraita No. 4568/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Late Sh. Maha Singh Th. Legal Heir Vs Income Tax Officer, Bijender Singh, Ward-3, Vill. Moi Majri, Tehsil & Distt. Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131002 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Jtips2811F Assessee By : Sh. Saurav Rohtagi, Ca & Sh. Rajat Mittal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023–24/1060398128(1) Dated 01.02.2024, In Proceedings U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Rohtagi, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 159Section 2(29)

hearing that the appellant herein, namely, Sh. Bijender Singh claims himself to 2 Late Sh. Maha Singh Th. Legal Heir Bijender Singh be the legal representative of the deceased assessee Sh. Maha Singh who is stated to have expired on 21.02.2019. That being the case, learned counsel could hardly dispute ... that there is no indication in the case records as to whether the appellant, the self-proclaimed legal representative herein, either manages or he has succeeded to estate of the deceased assessee as per section 2(29) of the Act r.w.s. 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan Extn vs. Om Prakash Arora, Connaught Place

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

ITA 5031/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

remain with the First party till transactions are fully completed. That this MOU is final and binding upon the parties their legal heirs successors, legal representatives etc. 5. That this transaction taken place in New Delhi and as such New Delhi courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain any dispute

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan Extn vs. Om Prakash Arora, Connaught Place

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

ITA 5029/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

remain with the First party till transactions are fully completed. That this MOU is final and binding upon the parties their legal heirs successors, legal representatives etc. 5. That this transaction taken place in New Delhi and as such New Delhi courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain any dispute

Pratima Reddy Muthu, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1310/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1310/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2010-2011 Pratima Reddy Muthu, Hyderabad – 500 034. The Acit, Circle-14(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 004. Telangana. Pan Aaopm8335J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Yogesh K Jagia & Sri Amit Sood, Advocates. राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri Yogesh K Jagia And Sri Amit Sood, AdvocatesFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 159(1)Section 159(6)Section 171(1)Section 2(11)Section 2(29)Section 250Section 28

perverse of record is liable to be set aside. 2) That Ld. CIT(Appeal) failed to appreciate that liabilities of legal representative under section 159(6) of Act, is limited to the extent of which the estate is capable of meeting the liabilities and no personal liability can be fasten ... legal representative whereas admittedly appellant discharged substantial liabilities of deceased out of the estate, which have been denied in the impugned order. 3) That Ld. CIT (Appeal) erred in passing impugned order by failing to take countenance of section 159(1) of Act making legal representative, as defined in section