S. 281 : Certain transfers to be void-Natural justice-Order passed without giving an opportunity of hearing-Bad in law-Tax recovery Officer has no jurisdiction to examine whether the transfer is void-Order was quashed. [S. 222, Rule 11 of the Second Schedule, Art, 226, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S. 53]
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Tax Recovery Officer under section 281 of the Act. Allowing the petition the Court held that the order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing hence the order is bad in law. The Court also held that the Tax Recovery Officer cannot examine whether the transfer is void, the Department being in the position of creditor will have to file a suit for a declaration that the transaction of transfer is void under section 281 of the Act. The Court followed Tax Recovery Officer v. Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade (1998) 234 ITR 188/100 Taxman 236(SC) / Tax Recovery Officer v. Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade (2007) 294 ITR 614 / (2008) 170 Taxman 289 (Bom)(HC). Writ petition was allowed. (WP No. 3815 of 2021 dt 19-7-2022)
Nitn Nagarkar v. ITO (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org
[Coram : Hon’ble Shri Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Hon’ble Shri Justice Valmiki Sa Menezes]