https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297314 After service of notice under Rule 2 of the Second Schedule, a defaulter-assessee cannot rely on the proviso to Section 281(1) to defeat attachment of immovable property, because the transfer is hit by the recovery framework and the attachment relates back to the notice date. A purchaser who acquired no interest or possession as on that date cannot object successfully under Rule 11(3)(a). However, the Tax Recovery Officer has no jurisdiction to declare the transfer null and void; that power lies with the civil court. The attachment was sustained, but the declaration voiding the sale was set aside. en-us Wed, 07 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:35:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297314 After service of notice under Rule 2 of the Second Schedule, a defaulter-assessee cannot rely on the proviso to Section 281(1) to defeat attachment of immovable property, because the transfer is hit by the recovery framework and the attachment relates back to the notice date. A purchaser who acquired no interest or possession as on that date cannot object successfully under Rule 11(3)(a). However, the Tax Recovery Officer has no jurisdiction to declare the transfer null and void; that power lies with the civil court. The attachment was sustained, but the declaration voiding the sale was set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 07 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297314