https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19271 The court upheld the Tax Recovery Officer's authority to investigate ownership claims in attachment proceedings under the Income-tax Act. It clarified that possession must be in the claimant's right, not on behalf of the defaulter. The Officer's decision on ownership is challengeable through a civil suit; otherwise, it becomes conclusive. The court deemed the notice demanding proof of ownership valid, as the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim. Subsequent events, like a civil suit by the defaulter, do not affect the attachment's validity. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit and imposed a nominal counsel fee. en-us Tue, 06 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:30:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19271 The court upheld the Tax Recovery Officer's authority to investigate ownership claims in attachment proceedings under the Income-tax Act. It clarified that possession must be in the claimant's right, not on behalf of the defaulter. The Officer's decision on ownership is challengeable through a civil suit; otherwise, it becomes conclusive. The court deemed the notice demanding proof of ownership valid, as the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim. Subsequent events, like a civil suit by the defaulter, do not affect the attachment's validity. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit and imposed a nominal counsel fee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 06 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19271