Legal representative liability in reassessment fails where the person was treated only as a legal heir without estate succession.

Reassessment proceedings could not be sustained against a person merely described as a legal heir, where there was no finding that he was the legal representative of the deceased assessee or that the deceased's estate had devolved upon him. The statutory liability of a legal representative extends only to the value of the estate represented, and the term must be understood as a person in law representing that estate. On strict construction, mere heirship was insufficient to fasten reassessment liability. The proceedings were therefore unsustainable in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings could be sustained against a person treated only as a legal heir, in the absence of a finding that he was the legal representative of the deceased assessee and had succeeded to the deceased's estate.

Analysis: The proceedings arose under reassessment provisions for alleged unexplained cash deposits and credits in the hands of the deceased assessee. The lower authorities proceeded against the appellant as a legal heir, but there was no clear finding that he represented the estate of the deceased or that the estate had devolved upon him. The statutory scheme makes liability of a legal representative coextensive only with the value of the deceased's estate, and the expression "legal representative" has to be understood in the sense of a person in law representing the estate of the deceased. Applying a strict construction, mere description as a legal heir was held insufficient to sustain the proceedings.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings against the appellant were unsustainable in law because he was treated only as a legal heir and not shown to be the legal representative of the deceased assessee.

---