TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ider the same on its merits - in favour of assessee. - WRIT PETITION NO. 8841 OF 2011 - - - Dated:- 17-7-2012 - S.J.VAZIFDAR M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. Mr. C.T. Chandratre for the Petitioner. Mr. Vimal Gupta for the Respondent. JUDGMENT ( Per M.S. SANKLECHA, J.): Rule. By consent, rule returnable forthwith. The respondents waive service. At the instance and the request of the Advocates for both the sides, petition is taken up for final hearing. 2 By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to orders dated 11th March, 2011 and 18th July,2011 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax rejecting the petitioner's application dated 2nd May, 2007 and second application 26th June, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication 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 the field of mechanical or electrical engineering . The clarificatory letter dated 4th October, 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 be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent 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 26th June, 2011. 5) As against the above, Mr. Vimal Gupta the learned Advocate for the respondent supports the impugned order and submits 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 17th July, 2011 does not independently deal with the fresh application dated 26th June, 2011 and rejects it only on the ground that the previous application had been rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
