Skip to content


Kirit P. Budhbhatti Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSpecial Civil Application No. 3281 of 1984
Judge
Reported in[1986]158ITR430(Guj)
ActsWealth Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 7(1) and 34AB(2); Wealth Tax Rules, 1957 - Rule 8A
AppellantKirit P. Budhbhatti
RespondentCentral Board of Direct Taxes and ors.
Appellant Advocate A.V. Mody, Adv.
Respondent Advocate R.P. Bhatt and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.
Excerpt:
- .....he was able to persuade the institution to recognise him as a member of the institution in civil engineering, which, on the basis of rules relating to the institution, is permissible even without a person possessing a qualification in civil engineering. but this membership of the institution of engineers did not enable him to get registration as a valuer under section 34ab of the wealth-tax act. his complaint is that he was denied improperly the right to become a valuer. answer to this is simple. sub-section (2) of section 34ab provides that any person who possesses the qualifications prescribed in that behalf may apply to the board for being registered as a valuer. the concerned rule which prescribes the qualification is rule 8a. that requires that a valuer of immovable property.....
Judgment:

P.S. Poti, C.J.

1. The short question raised in this case is whether the petitioner who is admittedly qualified in electrical engineering is entitled to be a valuer under the Wealth-tax Act. Of course, that he is qualified in electrical engineering is not in dispute. He is a member of the Institution of Engineers (India) in Electrical. Subsequently, he was able to persuade the Institution to recognise him as a member of the Institution in Civil Engineering, which, on the basis of rules relating to the Institution, is permissible even without a person possessing a qualification in civil engineering. But this membership of the Institution of Engineers did not enable him to get registration as a valuer under section 34AB of the Wealth-tax Act. His complaint is that he was denied improperly the right to become a valuer. Answer to this is simple. Sub-section (2) of section 34AB provides that any person who possesses the qualifications prescribed in that behalf may apply to the Board for being registered as a valuer. The concerned rule which prescribes the qualification is rule 8A. That requires that a valuer of immovable property shall possess certain qualifications. One of such qualifications is that he must be either a graduate in civil engineering, architecture or town planning of a recognized university or possess a qualification recognized 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. That he does not have a degree in civil engineering is admitted. Evidently, the case seems to be that he possesses a qualification recognised by the Central Government, viz, the Institution of Engineers (India). That contention is not available as it is answered by Explanation 2 to the rule, which is as under :

'Where the membership of any institution is recognised by the Central Government as a qualification or the purpose of recruitment to superior services or posts under the Central Government in any field, such membership shall not be regarded as a requisite qualification for the purposes of this rule, unless the membership has been granted on the basis of passing the examinations conducted by the institution.'

2. The recognition by the Central Government of a qualification for the purposes of recruitment to the superior services or posts under the Central Government is not to be regarded as a requisite qualification under the rule. It can be regarded so only if the membership of any institution recognised by the Central Government as sufficient qualification has been granted on the basis of passing the examination conducted by the Institution. The averments in the petition are categorical that the petitioner got the membership of the Institution in Civil Engineering, not by virtue of passing an examination but by approaching the Institution by a letter requesting that this must be done. That being the case, that disables the petitioner from getting registration as a valuer. In other words, he is not qualified. Hence, we dismiss the petition. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //