Nitin Nagarkar v. ITO (Bombay High Court)
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
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…
Result: Quashed / set aside. The controlling text is the reasoning and operative order in the packaged judgment, not this editorial summary.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: 281
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- 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…
- What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
- How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?
Material facts and procedural background
Nitin Nagarkar, } 401, B Wing, Two Roses, } Dr. Ambedkar Road, } Opp. HDFC, Pali Naka, } Bandra (West), } Mumbai – 400050 } .. Petitioner
Income-tax Ofcer, } Ward-23(2)(6), Mumbai, } Room No. 107, 1st Floor, } Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, } Mumbai – 400007 & Ors. } .. Respondents **** Mr. Madhur Agrawal a/w Mr. Fenil Bhatt i/b Mr. Atul K. Jasani, Advocates for the Appellant. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, Advocate for the Respondents. **** CORAM : DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ.
2. The Petitioner has challenged inter alia the order dated 27th June,
The Petitioner claims that he purchased a property being land and
conveyance, Vendor No. 1 transferred the land in favour of the Petitioner
Appellant / assessee submissions
. With the consent of learned Counsel for both the parties, the petition
4. It is submitted that after about 10 years of purchase of the said land
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that the order impugned
Revenue / respondent submissions
The packaged judgment does not separately label the respondent's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court held that the Tax
Operative decision and relief
The result is recorded as Quashed / set aside. The exact relief and qualifications are controlled by the final operative paragraphs of the packaged judgment.
Official source and later-history control
Primary record: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_SEARCH_PENDING
Later-history status: REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_CHECK_PENDING
High Court review, intra-court appeal where applicable, and Supreme Court SLP/appeal history remain to be closed.
Release decision: Published with a sanitized local judgment copy and explicit source disclosure; official-primary retrieval and later-history surveillance remain open. Checked 2026-08-11; page is published as index,follow with these limitations disclosed.
Ratio and legal principle
- The packaged judgment addresses 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 precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
- Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Why this judgment matters
This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with 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… Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.
Practitioner action points
- Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
- Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
- Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | High Court |
|---|---|
| Source integrity | Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; issuing-court primary pending |
| Repository release | PUBLISH_READY |
| Reliance rule | Verify current history and cite the judgment's narrow proposition, not the editorial headnote. |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- The same primary issue is raised.
- The same statutory version and jurisdiction apply.
- The procedural stage and burden of proof are comparable.
- The material documentary record is substantially similar.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later higher-court ruling changes the position.
- The statutory provision or relevant period differs.
- The evidence or procedural chronology is materially different.
- A defect decisive here was cured in the user's case.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Nitin Nagarkar v. ITO (Bombay High Court)?
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…
Which facts matter most?
Nitin Nagarkar, } 401, B Wing, Two Roses, } Dr. Ambedkar Road, } Opp. HDFC, Pali Naka, } Bandra (West), } Mumbai – 400050 } .. Petitioner
What did the Bombay High Court decide?
Quashed / set aside
What legal principle can be taken from the judgment?
The packaged judgment addresses 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 precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions. Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Which provisions should be checked?
281
When is the case most useful?
When the user's facts raise the same issue - 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… - at a comparable procedural stage and under the same statutory version.
What could distinguish the case?
Different evidence, jurisdiction, statutory period, procedural chronology, or later controlling authority can materially change the result.
Can it be cited without another current-law check?
No. Read the packaged judgment and verify current appellate/review/SLP history, statutory amendments and jurisdiction before citation or advice.
Section / provision impact
- 281 - apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
Case network
Similar issue / useful comparison
- JM Financial Ltd. v. Dy. CIT - ITAT Mumbai - F Bench
- Mrs. Usha Eswar v. ITO - Court / Tribunal to be verified
- Adityaraj Builders v. State of Maharashtra - Bombay High Court
Different outcome / possible distinction
- Zainul Abedin Ghaswala v. NFAC - Operative order controls
- ITO v. Rajni D. Saini - Operative order controls
Related Finin2min resources
Full judgment and source control
Read / download packaged judgment record
Source class: SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.