SURESH DEOLE Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall govern the disposal of M. P. No. 1019 (Suresh Deole v. Chief CIT) and M. P. No. 1077 of 1989 (Avinash Kutumbale v. Chief CIT).

(2.) THE petitioner in M. P. No. 1019 of 1989, Suresh Deole, is practising as an architect since 1970. He obtained his degree in Architecture in the year 1969 from Maulana Azad College of Technology, Bhopal. THE petitioner was a duly registered valuer under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, vide order of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated January 20, 1986. THEreafter, Section 34AB and other corresponding provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called "the Act"), were amended by the Finance Act of 1988 with effect from June 1, 1988, and the name of the Chief Commissioner was substituted in the place of the Central Board of Direct Taxes in respedt of according registration. THE provisions contained in Chapter VII-B of the' Act were also amended with effect from June 1, 1988, and Section 34AE was inserted requiring the existing registered valuers to apply afresh. According to the petitioner, as he was not a valuer registered immediately before June 1, 1988, having been granted registration on January 20, 1986, he did not fall within the category of these persons who were required to apply afresh for continuation of their registration as a valuer. However, on the advice of the local Income-tax Department and by way of abundant caution, the petitioner sent an application to respondent No. 1 for renewal of the registration of the petitioner as a valuer. Whereupon, the petitioner received a letter dated May 24, 1989, from respondent No. 1 informing the petitioner that his application for renewal has been rejected because his income for the last ten years was less than Rs. 50,000 per annum and, therefore, he did not fit in the category evolved by the Board in this behalf. According to the petitioner, the order rejecting his application on the basis of the income is against the law and the Rules. THE Rules framed under the Act do not provide for any criterion pertaining to minimum income as a condition of eligibility for registration. THErefore, respondent No. 1 could not reject the application of the petitioner. Consequently, the rejection of the application is illegal. A prayer, therefore, has been made for quashing the order of rejection of the application of the petitioner and directing respondent No. 1 to grant registration to the petitioner.

(3.) IN reply to the petitioner in M. P. No. 1077 of 1989 also, the petition has been resisted on the ground that, initially on July 8, 1977, the Board had fixed the criteria for implementation of the Rules for registration of the valuers wherein an income of Rs. 15,000 per year for the three years out of the five years of practice was one of the conditions for eligibility for registration and that mandatory criteria has been revised by the Board after 11 years and the income of Rs. 15,000 has been substituted by Rs. 50,000. As the petitioner has not been able to show that his income is in accordance with the criteria fixed by the Board respondent No. 1 has rightly rejected his application for registration.