2015 (11) TMI 27 - HC - Wealth-tax

Petitioner's Engineering Degree Not Sufficient for Valuer Registration

Sarch Kumar Versus The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax And Another

The court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's application for registration as a valuer under the Wealth Tax Act, emphasizing the specific ... Rejection of application for registration as a valuer under Section 34-AB of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 - Held that:- Central Government is responsible for the appointment of Valuation Officers, according to Section 12A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 and the conditions of service are also listed in the Central Government. Besides, the petitioner does not possess the necessary qualification and experience in the field of Civil Engineering and according to the amended Rule 8-A (2) (ii) of the Wealth Tax Rules of 1995 and the amendment, which came into effect on 31/01/1995, the petitioner does not possess the necessary qualification and experience in the field of Civil Engineering and the application has thus been rightly rejected by respondent No.1 The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. The basic qualification of an Engineer is a degree on the Civil side and since the matter pertains to being appointed as a valuer of immovable property, land or machinery, and the basic qualifications either being Civil Engineer, Architecture or Town Planning can not be marginalized or blinked away. Hence, we find that the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the petitioner can not be accepted and the petition must be dismissed as being without merit. - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Rejection of application for registration as a registered valuer for immovable properties, plant, and machinery under Section 34-AB of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.Analysis:The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection of their application for registration as a valuer. The rejection was based on the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax's decision, which was contested in a previous writ petition. The court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh application, but upon doing so, the application was dismissed. The petitioner argued that they possessed the necessary qualifications, including a Bachelor of Engineering degree recognized by the Government of India, making them eligible for registration. The petitioner cited previous court judgments to support their case, emphasizing equivalence of qualifications and eligibility criteria.The respondent, Commissioner of Income Tax, contended that the petitioner did not meet the requisite qualifications as per Section 34-AB of the Wealth Tax Act. The requirement was to be a graduate in Civil Engineering, Architecture, or Town Planning from a recognized university, or possess a qualification recognized by the Central Government for recruitment to superior services in the relevant field. The respondent highlighted that the petitioner's Bachelor of Engineering degree in Electronics and Communications did not meet the specified criteria for registration as a valuer. The respondent argued that the use of the word 'or' did not justify the petitioner's claim of eligibility based on their engineering degree, citing previous court cases to support their position.Upon careful consideration, the court found that the petitioner's argument based on possessing a Bachelor of Engineering degree and membership in the Institute of Engineers did not fulfill the specific qualifications required for registration as a valuer of immovable properties. The court emphasized expert opinions indicating that the petitioner's engineering qualifications were not sufficient for recruitment to superior posts as a valuer under the Central Government. The court highlighted the distinct qualifications needed for valuing immovable property, machinery, and plant, emphasizing the importance of qualifications in Civil Engineering, Architecture, or Town Planning for such roles. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner's qualifications did not meet the necessary criteria for registration as a valuer under the Wealth Tax Act.In conclusion, the court's judgment upheld the rejection of the petitioner's application for registration as a valuer, emphasizing the specific qualifications required under the Wealth Tax Act and the essential criteria for assessing eligibility for such roles. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the petitioner's qualifications in relation to the statutory requirements for valuers, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.