https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39197 Section 281 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood before its 1975 amendment, was treated as applying to recovery proceedings under the Second Schedule as well as to pre-recovery stages. Rule 16 of the Second Schedule was read as operating on the same subject-matter, so both provisions had to be harmoniously construed. In a rule 11 investigation, the Tax Recovery Officer must conduct a quasi-judicial inquiry into whether the transfer was made to defraud the revenue and, if that burden is shown, whether the transferee was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice of the pending proceedings. The officer's failure to apply these safeguards rendered the order unsustainable. en-us Fri, 21 Nov 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:16:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39197 Section 281 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood before its 1975 amendment, was treated as applying to recovery proceedings under the Second Schedule as well as to pre-recovery stages. Rule 16 of the Second Schedule was read as operating on the same subject-matter, so both provisions had to be harmoniously construed. In a rule 11 investigation, the Tax Recovery Officer must conduct a quasi-judicial inquiry into whether the transfer was made to defraud the revenue and, if that burden is shown, whether the transferee was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice of the pending proceedings. The officer's failure to apply these safeguards rendered the order unsustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 21 Nov 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39197