Income Tax Proceedings Initiated Against Assessee After His Death Cannot Be Continued Against Legal Representative: Karnataka HC
The single-judge bench had ruled in favor of the legal representative of the deceased Assessee and set aside the demand notice, penalty notice, and any other related proceedings that raised a tax demand.

The Karnataka High Court ruled that Income Tax proceedings initiated against Assessee after his death cannot be continued against his legal representatives.
The ruling came while dismissing an appeal filed by the Income Tax Officer, who had challenged the decision of a single-judge bench. The single-judge bench had ruled in favor of the legal representative of the deceased Assessee and set aside the demand notice, penalty notice, and any other related proceedings that raised a tax demand.
The division bench of Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice G. Basavaraja, made this clear, stating, “Had the proceedings been initiated against the Assessee during his lifetime, they could have continued against the legal representatives of the deceased Assessee.”
Advocate YV Raviraj appeared for the Appellants and Advocate Sandeep Huilgol appeared for the respondents.
The Revenue’s counsel referred to Section 159(2)(a), (b), and (c) of the Income Tax Act in an attempt to argue that the proceedings could be continued against the legal representative.
However, the Court disagreed, pointing out that these provisions clearly state that proceedings initiated against the Assessee during their lifetime could be continued against their legal representatives. The provisions, the bench emphasized, do not support the idea that proceedings can be initiated against a deceased Assessee, nor can any orders passed in such proceedings be enforced against their legal representatives.
The Court further noted, “If the Parliament intended that, a proceeding of the kind can be initiated against the Assessee posthumously and orders passed therein should bind his Legal Representatives, the language of the provision would have been much different.”
The bench rejected the argument that the Revenue should be allowed to initiate fresh proceedings against the legal representatives after the original proceedings were set aside. The said, “This contention is structured on a premise that the Legal Representatives i.e., persons who hold estate of the deceased Assessee in their hands are under a legal obligation to inform the Revenue as to the death of the Assessee. To support such a premise, no provision of law in general and no section of 1961 Act in particular are brought to our notice.”
The Court concluded, “If the statutorily prescribed time limit has expired as against the deceased himself, as has happened in this case then no proceedings can be taken against his LRs.”
As a result, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the single-judge bench's ruling that had favored the legal representative.
Cause Title: The Income Tax Officer & Anr. v. Preethi V, [2025:KHC:2554-DB]