Legal representative liability requires complete estate representation and does not extend to post-death income tax.
A compromise decree showed that the deceased assessee's estate was allotted among the widow, daughters, mother and charitable interests, so the widow and daughters were treated as legal representatives because they represented the estate. Reassessment notices were invalid because they were issued only to some legal representatives, whereas complete service on all persons representing the estate was required to validly proceed against a deceased assessee's estate. A legal representative's liability was confined to tax recoverable from the deceased's estate and did not extend to income arising after death. On that basis, the reassessment proceedings could not be sustained.
Issues: (i) whether the writ petitioner and her sisters, in the light of the compromise decree, were legal representatives of the deceased assessee; (ii) whether reassessment notices issued to some only of several legal representatives were valid; and (iii) whether a legal representative could be made liable for tax relating to the period after the death of the assessee.
Issue (i): whether the writ petitioner and her sisters, in the light of the compromise decree, were legal representatives of the deceased assessee.
Analysis: The compromise decree showed that the properties of the deceased were divided among the widow, the daughters, the mother, and charitable arrangements were also made. The shares were worked out with reference to the estate of the deceased and the parties continued in possession of the allotted shares as heirs under the arrangement. In such circumstances, the daughters and the widow were not mere volunteers, but persons representing the estate of the deceased. The expression "legal representative" was therefore attracted to them within the meaning of the relevant procedural law.
Conclusion: The writ petitioner and her sisters were legal representatives of the deceased.
Issue (ii): whether reassessment notices issued to some only of several legal representatives were valid.
Analysis: Where a deceased assessee is represented by more than one legal representative, complete representation of the estate is necessary. A notice addressed only to some of them does not validly bring the estate before the taxing authority if other legal representatives, including those having interests under the compromise decree, are omitted. The record showed that the mother of the deceased and the charitable institution also had interests under the estate arrangement, yet no notice was served on them. The absence of notice to all persons representing the estate rendered the reassessment notices defective.
Conclusion: The notices were invalid for want of service on all legal representatives.
Issue (iii): whether a legal representative could be made liable for tax relating to the period after the death of the assessee.
Analysis: Liability under the provision governing a deceased assessee extends only to tax lawfully recoverable from the estate in respect of the deceased and does not authorise imposition of tax for income arising after death. The subsequent period could not be fastened on the legal representative merely by reason of succession to the estate. The Court followed the settled principle that post-death income is outside such liability.
Conclusion: The writ petitioner could not be made liable for tax for the period after the assessee's death.
Final Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings could not be sustained, and the departmental appeals failed.
Ratio Decidendi: In reassessment proceedings against a deceased assessee's estate, all legal representatives having an interest in the estate must be served so as to ensure complete representation, and a legal representative is not liable for tax attributable to income arising after the death of the assessee.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
