IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 14543 of 2001 Date of Decision: October 8, 2009 R.K. Jain …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. Challenge in the instant petition is to order dated 20.8.1998 (P-3) and order dated 20.12.2000 (P-7) passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh & Panchkula. The application of the petitioner for registration as a Valuer under Section 34AB of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) has been rejected by the aforesaid orders on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfil the necessary qualification laid down in Rule 8A(2)(i)(A) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner possess a Diploma Certificate of Draftsman from the Government of India C.W.P. No. 14543 of 2001 (Ministry of Labour). He has claimed to be working as an Architect/Valuer since 1968. He is registered as an Architect with the Council of Architecture under the provisions of the Architects Act, 1972 (P-1). He applied to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax- respondent No. 2 for registration as a Valuer under the provisions of the Act on 17.3.1998 (P-2). The Income Tax Officer-respondent No. 4 forwarded his application to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak-respondent No. 3, who in turn sent the same to the Chief Commissioner-respondent No. 2. The application was eventually rejected on 20.8.1998 (P-3). The petitioner made further application seeking review of the order dated 20.8.1998, which after thorough examination met the same fate. The earlier view taken by the Chief Commissioner that the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite qualification as laid down in Rule 8(A)(2)(i)(A) of the Rules was re- affirmed, vide order dated 20.12.2000 (P-7). Accordingly, the petitioner has challenged both the orders. In the written statement the broad factual position has not been disputed and it has been reiterated that the petitioner does not answer the qualification envisaged by Rule 8(A)(2)(i)(A) of the Rules. The principal ground urged by Mr. Amit Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition is that the petitioner has been illegally non-suited as he fulfilled the alternative qualification as envisaged by clause (i) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8A of the Rules, namely, that he is a registered Architect which would entitle him to registration as a Valuer under Section 34AB of the Act. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been working and 2 C.W.P. No. 14543 of 2001 has acquired rich experience in the field of architecture/valuer/ engineering since 1956 for the last 41 years. In that regard he has referred to his application dated 17.3.1998 (P-2), which shows that he worked for 11½ years in Hisar Textile Mills a sister concern of Delhi Cloth and General Mills, Delhi. Thereafter he has been in independent practice as an Architect/Valuer and Engineer since 1967. He has been registered with the Municipal Council at Rohtak as well as Council of Architecture, New Delhi, for about 30 years and claims to have sorted out technical problems of architectural, engineering and in valuation field. None has appeared to support the impugned orders. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner it would first be necessary to examine the provisions of Section 34AB of the Act. According to the aforesaid section the Chief Commissioner or Director General are the competent authorities to register a Valuer and enter his name on the Register of Valuers which is required to be maintained. It is further provided that different qualifications may be prescribed for Valuers of different classes of assets. The qualifications for registration of a Valuer have been laid down in Rule 8A of the Rules. The relevant part of the aforesaid rule reads thus:- “8A. (1) For the purposes of sub-section (2) of section 34AB, the qualifications for registration as valuers of different classes of asset shall be as specified in sub-rules (2) to (11). (2) A valuer of immovable property (other than agricultural lands, plantations, forests, mines and 3 C.W.P. No. 14543 of 2001 quarries) shall have the following qualifications, namely:- (i) he must- (A) be a graduate in civil engineering, architecture or town planning of a recognised university; or (B) be a post-graduate in valuation of real estate from a recognised university; or (C) possess a qualification recognised 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 (ii) xxx xxx xxx (3) to (14) xxx xxx xxx” A perusal of the aforesaid rule shows that a Valuer of immovable property which is not to include agricultural lands, plantations, forests, mines and quarries, must possess the qualification of being a graduate in civil engineering, architecture or town planning of a recognised university or post-graduate in valuation of real estate from a recognised university or he must have qualification recognised 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. It is conceded as a fact that the petitioner is not a graduate in any of the disciplines nor he is a post-graduate. However, 4 C.W.P. No. 14543 of 2001 an attempt has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to bring his case under Rule 8A(2)(i)(C) of the Rules by arguing that the petitioner possess the qualification in the field of architecture. The aforesaid argument can also not be accepted because the qualifications envisaged by Rule 8A)(2)(i)(C) are that a Valuer must possess a qualification recognised by the Central Government for recruitment to superior services. There is nothing on the record to conclude that the petitioner possess any such qualification which has been recognised by the Central Government for recruitment to superior services or posts under the Central Government. Such qualification is required to be in the field of civil engineering, architecture or town planning. The qualification possessed by the petitioner is a Diploma in Draftsman which is far from answering the qualification prescribed by Rule 8A(2)(i) of the Rules. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 20.8.1998 and 20.12.2000 (P-3 & P-7) do not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The case of the petitioner for registration as Valuer under Section 34AB of the Act has been rightly rejected. There is, thus, no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) October 8, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 5