Sarch Kumar vs The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Others

S.R. Waghmare, J.—This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, being aggrieved by order dated 12/12/2014 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, rejecting the application for registration as a registered valuer for immovable properties, plant and machinery.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner Sarch Kumar Kaul had filed an application for registration as a valuer under Section 34-AB of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.

The same was rejected by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, respondent No. 1 and the rejection was the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 9666/11. However, this was by order dated 14/05/2015 directed that if the petitioner submits a fresh application along with copy of certificate of academic qualification; then the competent Authority shall pass a written order, without being influenced by the rejection. On filing fresh application dated 17/06/2013, the application was dismissed by order dated 12/12/2014. Hence the present petition.

Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that respondent No. 1 The Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in holding that petitioner does not possess qualification required for the said registration and that the Commissioner had failed to consider the decision passed by the Allahabad High Court (110 ITA 549), which was placed before him. Counsel urged that the impugned order was contrary to the ratio laid-down in the said case and hence the order is perverse and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

Counsel also vehemently urged that the petitioner was fully eligible since he had a requisite qualification of Bachelor of Engineering having passed Section A & B of the examination of the Institute of Engineers, which is a recognized body of the Government of India for the purpose of recruitment under the Central Government and hence Counsel submitted that since the petitioner fulfills all the prescribed qualifications under Rule 2 & 8, the respondent No. 1 has erred in dismissing/rejecting the application of the petitioner. The order suffers from legal infirmities and is liable to be quashed and Counsel prayed that the petition be allowed. Counsel also submitted that there is no alternative remedy, except by approaching this Court by the present Writ Petition. To bolster his submissions, Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of Allahabad High Court, passed in the case of S.K. Ahuja Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Another, Income Tax Reports Vol. 110 page 549, whereby the Court has held thus:

"The case of the petitioner is that he possesses qualifications which are recognized by the Public Service Commission as equivalent to a degree in civil engineering or architecture. In paragraph 29 of the petition it is averred that the petitioner is a holder of a diploma granted by the Institution of Engineers (India), Calcutta, and is a Member in the Civil Engineering Division which is equivalent to a degree in civil engineering."

Counsel has also relied on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Institutions of Valuers v. Union of India (Special Civil Application No. 9762 of 2001).

Firstly the Court has considered the question whether the second qualification prescribed under sub-rule (2) of rule 8A of the rules concerned should be post-graduate in valuation of real estate from a recognized university. In this regard it may be germane to refer to the regulations of the Sardar Patel University referred in the case of S.K. Ahuja (Supra) for the Post Graduate Programme for Master in valuation and Counsel submitted that graduate degree in civil engineering was not the concomitant since the course in Master of Valuation does not pertain to any discipline of engineering.

Per contra Counsel for the respondent No. 1 Commissioner of Income Tax has vehemently urged the fact that as per Section 34-AB of the Wealth Tax Act, as per sub Rule (2) of Rule 8-A the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification and experience in the respective line. Counsel also urged that undisputedly the petitioner had the qualification of Bachelor of Engineering; but the requirement was:

"A) Be a graduate in Civil Engineering, architecture or town planning of a recognized university; Or

B) Be a post-graduate in civil engineering, architecture or town planning of a recognized university; or

C) Possess a qualification recognized by the Central Government for recruitment to superior Services or posts under the Central Government in the field of civil engineering, architecture or town planning."

And hence, for the post of valuer under the Central Government, to be eligible for recruitment, the petitioner ought to have been a graduate in Civil Engineering, architecture or town planning, whereas, the petitioner himself admitted that he has passed Section A & C in Electronics and Communications, as per Circular No. F. 18-4/78-T.7 dated 16/08/1978 issued by the Government of India and Counsel urged that a Bachelor degree of Electronic and Communication can be considered equivalent to Bachelor degree in the line of Civil Engineering, Architecture or Town Planning.

Secondly since Counsel for the petitioner contended that the use of the word "or" amply justified the stand of the petitioner that he was eligible for consideration. Counsel urged that the case relied in the matter of S.K. Ahuja (supra). The said petitioner S.K. Ahuja was a diploma holder in Civil Engineering, besides, he was also a member of the Institute of Engineers in the Civil Division, which is a degree, which was equivalent to degree in Civil Engineering and hence he could be held to be qualified for registration as a valuer for the immovable properties. Hence, Counsel prayed that the present petition is without merit and it be dismissed. Counsel also placed reliance on Institutions of Valuers (supra).

On considering all the submissions, we find that Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently laid stress on the word "or" used in the Section 8-A of this Wealth Tax Act and submitted that the petitioner possess the necessary qualifications for his registration as a valuer of immovable properties. He possess the graduate degree of B.E. and was also a member of the Institute of Engineers and that should have sufficed. After giving our anxious consideration to the submissions of the Counsel and the provisions of law, we find that such an argument though attractive at the first blush, can not be acceded, primarily because as submitted by the Counsel for the respondent the question has been examined twice by the respondent No. 1, Commissioner of Income Tax and the expert opinion rendered in the case also indicates in unequivocal terms that merely qualifying the engineering examination conducted by the Controller of Examination Institute will not render the petitioner eligible for purpose of recruitment for the superior post and services as valuer under the Central Government. The expert opinion states thus:

"(i) Graduate in civil engineering architecture or town planning- which is required as a qualification for granting registration as a valuer of immovable property (agricultural lands, plantations, forests, mines and quarries).

(ii) Graduate in mechanical or electrical engineering - which is required as a qualification for granting registration as a valuer of machinery and plant."

Thirdly the 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. Hence, the petition is hereby dismissed as such.

No costs.

CC as per rules.