SHRI. SANTOSH SHRIKANT ASHTEKAR Vs THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, OF INCOME TAX II AND OTHERS.

3) Briefly the facts leading to this petition are as under:

a) The petitioner is a citizen of India having graduated in 1993 from Shivaji University with the degree of Bachelor of Engineering (Production). Thereafter, the petitioner also became a fellow member of Institution of Valuer and Associated Member of Institution of Engineers India. In view of his vast experience the petitioner has also been appointed as panel valuer by various banks such as State Bank of India, Bank of Maharashtra etc.

b) On 2^ndMay, 2007, the petitioner made an application to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune for being registered as a valuer of plant and machinery under Section 34AB of the said Act. In his application, the petitioner pointed out that he is a Chartered Engineer and Government approved valuer having a bachelor of engineering degree in the branch of production.

c) On 11^thMarch,2011, the Chief Commissioner of

2

Income Tax rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that he does not possess the qualification as prescribed under Rule 8A (8)(i) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Rules") and clarificatory letter issued by Central Board of Direct Tax dated 4 ^thOctober, 1988. For the sake of convenience Rule 8A(8)(i) of the said Rules is reproduced herein below.

"8A : Qualification of registered valuers.

(8) A Valuer of Machinery and Plant shall have the following qualifications, namely:-

(I) he must-

(A) be a graduate in Mechanical Engineering or Electrical Engineering of a recognized University; or

(B) Possess post graduate degree in valuation of machinery and plant from 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

3

the field of mechanical or electrical engineering". The clarificatory letter dated 4^thOctober, 1988 specified degree in various other disciplines which would be considered equivalent to a degree in B.E.(Mechanical), (Electrical) and (Civil) for the purposes of being registered as valuer of plant and machinery under Section 34AB of the said Act. However, a degree in B.E.(Production) was not specified as equivalent to a degree in B.E.(Mechanical), (Electrical) or (Civil).

(d) Consequent to the above rejection, the petitioner made a fresh application on 26^thJune, 2011 to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. In his application, the petitioner placed reliance upon Rule 8A(8)(i)(C) of the said Rules and sought to support the same with evidence that a degree in production engineering is recognized as equivalent to a decree in Mechanical Engineering for recruitment to superior services or post under the Central Government.

e) On 18^thJuly, 2011, the Chief Commissioner of

4

Income Tax rejected the petitioner's fresh application. This rejection merely records that the petitioner's application for registration as a valuer had already been disposed of earlier by an order dated 11^thMarch, 2011.

4) The learned Advocate Mr. Chandratre submits that the order dated 18^thJuly, 2011 rejecting the petitioner's fresh application dated 26^thJune, 2011 is an order in breach of natural justice in as much as it does not deal with the application and rejects it merely on the ground that an earlier application has been rejected. He submits that the petitioner is qualified to be appointed as registered valuer under Section 34AB of the said Act. In support of the application, the petitioner has enclosed various advertisements issued by the Central Government for recruitment to its superior services wherein having a degree in production engineering is recognized for posts in the field of mechanical or electrical engineering. The evidence submitted by the petitioner has not been considered while rejecting the petitioner's fresh application dated 26^thJune, 2011.

5) As against the above, Mr. Vimal Gupta the learned Advocate for the respondent supports the impugned order and submits

5

that the petitioner is not qualified to be appointed as a registered valuer for Plant and Machinery under the said Act.

6) The order dated 17^thJuly, 2011 does not independently deal with the fresh application dated 26^thJune, 2011 and rejects it only on the ground that the previous application had been rejected by the said order dated 11^thMarch, 2011. In fact, in support of his application dated 26th June, 2011 the petitioner has produced evidence in support of his contention that the degree in production engineering has been recognized as a qualification equivalent to a degree in mechanical or electrical engineering for appointment to superior services and posts of Central Government. The application dated 26^thJune, 2011 being a fresh application, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is obliged to consider the same on its merits having regard to Rule 8A (8)(i)(C) of the said Rules, 1957.

7) It is not for this court to decide on the question of equivalence. That is for the authorities to consider and decide.

8) In view of the above, we set aside the order dated 18 ^thJuly 2011 and direct the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to consider the

6

fresh application of the petitioner dated 26^thJune, 2011 and decide the same on its merits.

Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.

( M.S. SANKLECHA, J. ) ( S. J. VAZIFDAR, J.)

7