https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39635 Under Rule 11(2) of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, the Tax Recovery Officer could require cash security or a bank guarantee as a condition for postponing sale of attached property, and that term was upheld. However, the officer could not reject an objection to attachment merely because the objector did not comply with that condition; the claim had to be investigated on the evidence and decided on merits. The portions of the orders debarring the objector from being heard and rejecting the objection for non-compliance were therefore without jurisdiction and quashed, with the objection to be decided afresh. en-us Fri, 13 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:20:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39635 Under Rule 11(2) of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, the Tax Recovery Officer could require cash security or a bank guarantee as a condition for postponing sale of attached property, and that term was upheld. However, the officer could not reject an objection to attachment merely because the objector did not comply with that condition; the claim had to be investigated on the evidence and decided on merits. The portions of the orders debarring the objector from being heard and rejecting the objection for non-compliance were therefore without jurisdiction and quashed, with the objection to be decided afresh. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 13 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39635