https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24375 Rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act gives the Tax Recovery Officer only a summary jurisdiction concerned with possession in attachment proceedings, so that officer cannot decide whether a transfer is void under section 281 for alleged intent to defraud the Revenue. The prior writ petition did not bar the petitioners from raising that contention because the issue had not been argued or finally decided. A quasi-judicial order under rule 11 must also record reasons and disclose the basis of decision; a non-speaking order is vulnerable to being set aside. The attachment was quashed and recovery from the property restrained. en-us Wed, 15 Dec 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:35:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24375 Rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act gives the Tax Recovery Officer only a summary jurisdiction concerned with possession in attachment proceedings, so that officer cannot decide whether a transfer is void under section 281 for alleged intent to defraud the Revenue. The prior writ petition did not bar the petitioners from raising that contention because the issue had not been argued or finally decided. A quasi-judicial order under rule 11 must also record reasons and disclose the basis of decision; a non-speaking order is vulnerable to being set aside. The attachment was quashed and recovery from the property restrained. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 15 Dec 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24375