Legal representative assessment remains valid where one representative is notified and the estate is held in separate shares.
Assessment of a deceased person's income through a legal representative is not invalid merely because every legal representative was not separately noticed. Where the estate vests in distinct shares, each representative may represent and be assessed to the extent of the share vested in him; this differs from a jointly held estate, where one representative alone cannot represent the whole. As one representative received notice, participated in the proceedings, and raised no timely objection, the assessment was valid against him to the extent of his share, and the challenge for want of notice to all representatives failed.
Issues: Whether an assessment on the income of a deceased person is invalid merely because notice was not issued to every legal representative, and whether notice to and participation by one legal representative can sustain the assessment where the estate is held in separate shares.
Analysis: Section 24 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, with the corresponding provisions in the income-tax law, requires assessment of the deceased's income through his legal representative, but it does not invariably insist that every legal representative must be separately noticed in all situations. A material distinction exists between an estate that vests jointly in several representatives and an estate that vests in several persons in distinct or separate shares. Where the estate is jointly held, one representative alone cannot represent the estate; but where the representatives hold as tenants-in-common or in defined shares, each can represent the part of the estate that has vested in him and may be assessed to that extent. The petitioner had in fact received notice, participated in the proceedings, and raised no objection at that stage that other legal representatives had not been impleaded.
Conclusion: The assessment was valid against the petitioner to the extent of the estate vested in him, and the challenge based on absence of notice to all legal representatives failed.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
