Legal representatives and reassessment notice: service on one heir alone is ordinarily insufficient without complete estate representation.

Section 24B(2) requires that, after an assessee's death, reassessment proceed only against legal representatives who fully represent the estate. Where there are multiple legal representatives, service of notice on one alone is ordinarily insufficient unless that person in fact manages the entire estate, the others consent to the proceedings, or the officer reasonably and honestly believes the served person is the sole representative after diligent enquiry. On the stated facts, none of those exceptions applied because the served representative covered only part of the estate, the others had not consented, and the officer knew other representatives existed. Notice on one representative alone was therefore not enough to validly initiate reassessment.

---

---

Issues: Whether notice under section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, served on only one of several legal representatives of a deceased assessee is sufficient to validly initiate reassessment proceedings under section 24B(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: Section 24B(2) embodies the principle that, after the death of an assessee, assessment can proceed only against those who completely represent the deceased's estate. Where there is more than one legal representative, the statutory expression must be read to require complete representation of the estate, and service on a single legal representative is ordinarily insufficient. Exceptions may exist where one representative in fact manages the entire estate, or where the proceedings are conducted with the consent, express or implied, of the others, or where the officer after diligent and bona fide enquiry reasonably and honestly believes the served person to be the sole representative. On the facts found, none of these exceptions applied: Daulatram represented only part of the estate, there was no consent by the other representatives, and the Income-tax Officer knew that other legal representatives existed but did not serve them.

Conclusion: Notice on Daulatram alone was not enough; the reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated under section 24B(2).

---