https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5688 In proceedings under r.11 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act concerning recovery against an attached residential immovable property, the dominant issue was whether the Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) could declare a pendente lite transfer void under s.281. SC held that the TRO's jurisdiction under r.11 is confined to examining possession and, only incidentally, the objector's claimed right to possession; it does not extend to adjudicating voidness under s.281. An earlier departmental "declaration" treating the transfer as void could not determine parties' rights under r.11. Consequently, the TRO's order was without jurisdiction and was rightly set aside; the appeal was dismissed, without prejudice to the Department initiating appropriate proceedings under s.281. en-us Thu, 10 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Dec 2025 15:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5688 In proceedings under r.11 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act concerning recovery against an attached residential immovable property, the dominant issue was whether the Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) could declare a pendente lite transfer void under s.281. SC held that the TRO's jurisdiction under r.11 is confined to examining possession and, only incidentally, the objector's claimed right to possession; it does not extend to adjudicating voidness under s.281. An earlier departmental "declaration" treating the transfer as void could not determine parties' rights under r.11. Consequently, the TRO's order was without jurisdiction and was rightly set aside; the appeal was dismissed, without prejudice to the Department initiating appropriate proceedings under s.281. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 10 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5688