https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17827 Rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act requires a summary inquiry focused on whether the claimant had possession of the property, and whether that possession was on the claimant's own account or on behalf of the defaulter; title may be considered only incidentally to determine the character of possession. The Tax Recovery Officer erred by not investigating possession and instead treating the transfers as void on alleged non-compliance with section 230A and on the basis that section 281 was inapplicable. That approach departed from the scope of Rule 11 and amounted to a jurisdictional error, so the attachment-related order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision within the limits of Rule 11. en-us Fri, 17 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:01:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17827 Rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act requires a summary inquiry focused on whether the claimant had possession of the property, and whether that possession was on the claimant's own account or on behalf of the defaulter; title may be considered only incidentally to determine the character of possession. The Tax Recovery Officer erred by not investigating possession and instead treating the transfers as void on alleged non-compliance with section 230A and on the basis that section 281 was inapplicable. That approach departed from the scope of Rule 11 and amounted to a jurisdictional error, so the attachment-related order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision within the limits of Rule 11. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 17 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17827