SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTA S/O JAI BHAGWAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

CW/6483/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02032917202202 May 2022Author: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Chairman, CBDT (Respondent No. 2) to examine the petitioner's representation against the rejection of his application for registration as a valuer. The examination was to specifically consider the Board's circular dated 04.10.1988, which treats a B.E. in Electronics as equivalent to a B.E. in Electrical. The Board was instructed to decide the matter within four weeks of receiving a copy of the order. If the circular of 04.10.1988 was found to be still in effect, the Board was to issue appropriate directions to the subordinate authority regarding the petitioner's registration as a valuer under the Wealth Tax Act and its rules. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, applied for registration as a valuer under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. His application was rejected by the Income Tax Officer (Tech.) on the grounds that he did not possess a B.E. in Electrical qualification. The petitioner argued that his B.E. in Electronics degree should be considered equivalent to a B.E. in Electrical, citing a Board's letter dated 04.10.1988 which established this equivalence. He had made a representation to the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), New Delhi, highlighting this discrepancy. The present writ petition was filed challenging the rejection of his application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner's qualification of B.E. in Electronics is equivalent to the degree of B.E. in Electrical for the purpose of registration as a valuer under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, considering the Board's letter dated 04.10.1988. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner contended that his B.E. in Electronics degree should be treated as equivalent to a B.E. in Electrical, as per the Board's letter dated 04.10.1988. He argued that the rejection of his application ignored this established equivalence and was in violation of the directions issued by the Board. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the rejection of the application by the Income Tax Officer implies that the revenue did not consider the petitioner's qualification to be sufficient.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Wealth Tax Act, 1957

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6483/2022 Shri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta S/o Jai Bhagwan, 116, New Grain Market, Samalkha, Panipat, Haryana-132101 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, (Tech.) For Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rajasthan, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. 2. The Chairman, Central Board Of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.K. Kasliwal, Adv. with Mr. Priyesh Kasliwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Adv. with Mr. N.S. Bhati, Adv. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order 02/05/2022 The only issue which arises for consideration in this petition is whether the qualification of B.E. in Electronics possessed by the petitioner is equivalent to the degree of B.E. in Electrical for the purpose of registration as a valuer under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that authorities have rejected the application holding that the petitioner does not possess qualification of B.E. in Electrical ignoring the Board’s letter dated 04.10.1988 wherein equivalence has been drawn to the effect that a degree of B.E. in Electronics shall be treated as equivalent to B.E. in Electrical. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that against the rejection, an application has been made before the (2 of 2) [CW-6483/2022] Chairman, CBDT, New Delhi highlighting that rejection of the application is in violation of the directions issued earlier on 04.10.1988. Taking into consideration the issue, instead of keeping this petition pending, we are inclined to direct the respondent No.2 to examine petitioner’s representation against rejection of his application for registration as valuer particularly taking into consideration that vide circular dated 04.10.1988, degree of B.E. in Electronics has been treated as equivalent to degree of B.E. in Electrical. That appeared to be the only reason for rejection of the application of the petitioner. On the said representation, the board shall decide the matter within a period of four weeks from the receipt of copy of this order and if it is found that circular dated 04.10.1988 continuous to remain effective and in existence, appropriate direction be issued to the subordinate authority in the matter of registration of the petitioner as registered valuer under the provisions of Wealth Tax Act and the Rules made thereunder. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off. All pending applications also stand disposed off. (SAMEER JAIN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ JKP/Arun/24

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →