Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 489 - HC - Income TaxApplication of the petitioners for registration as a “Valuer of Immovable Property” under Section 34AB of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 rejected - reasoning given by the said respondent on rejection of application was that the applicants must have been practicing as a Consulting Engineer, Valuer of real estate, Surveyor or Architect for a period of not less than ten years after having obtained the qualification as defined in Rules 8A(2)(i) and it was noticed that the applicant had obtained the graduate Degree in Civil Engineering in 2009 and, therefore, the experience acquired prior to the acquisition of the degree would be of no benefit - Held that:- Very recently, the same issue came up before the Apex Court in K.K.Dixit Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board & others [2015 (10) TMI 376 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the promotions were to the posts of Project Engineer (Senior) from amongst the Project Engineer (Juniors) who were Diploma holders with 7 years total experience of service. The dispute was again between Diploma holders and the Degree holders. Accordingly, it was held that the qualifications of AIME and the experience of service had to be post the acquisition of the degree. In the present case, as noticed, the issue is not of any dispute inter se the Diploma holders and Degree holders. The Rules provide that a person has to be a graduate in Civil Engineering and he must have the experience of working either under Government, private employment or on the academic side. In the alternative, the experience as a Consulting Engineer, Valuer of not less than 10 years, has been made mandatory, subject to certain conditions. The observations made by the Apex Court in the case of A.K.Raghumani Singh (2000 (4) TMI 819 - SUPREME COURT) and Anil Kumar Gupta (1999 (11) TMI 867 - SUPREME COURT) would squarely apply and the respondents were not justified in reading the qualification into the conjective word and implying that experience had to be subsequent to the acquisition of the degree. In such circumstances, the question of law is answered in favour of the writ petitioners that it is not necessary to gain the experience under the Rules, after the acquisition of the educational qualifications and accordingly, the order dated 31.12.2014 (Annexure P11), is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The respondents shall reconsider the applications of the petitioners, afresh and decide the same within a period of 2 months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order.
|