9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (10) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as required to make an application under sub-section (2) of section 34AB within a period of three months from that date, for being registered afresh as a valuer under Chapter VIIB of the Act. The petitioner did not apply for continuing his registration as a valuer under section 34AE within the prescribed time limit. He however, made an application annexure 'D' dated July 9, 1990, for renewal of his registration as a valuer or in the alternative, to grant him fresh registration as a valuer. The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad, however, by his communication annexure 'A' dated December 19, 1990, informed the petitioner that his application for renewal of registration, which was not made within three months from June 1, 1988, could not be entertained. The petitioner was further informed that since he had not carried out any professional activities during the past 3 to 4 years, his case could not be considered under rule 8A(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules the Rules " for short). In other words, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, refused to register the petitioner as a valuer. The petitioner thereupon made a representation to the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi the Boa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er a person who has made an application for registration as a valuer has acquired sufficient experience within the meaning of rule 8A(2)(ii)(B), the Board has prescribed the following criterion under its letter F. No. 326/282/88-OT, dated December 21, 1988 (Instruction No. 1802) read with its letter F. No. 325/ 282/88-OT, dated January 10, 1989 : " The gross receipts as consulting engineer, surveyor or architect, for the purpose of rule 8A(2)(ii)(B) in any three out of the last five years in which the applicant has been in practice should not be less than Rs. 50,000 per annum. In case the applicant is a partner of firm, the proportionate share of the gross receipts should not be less than this figure. " It is not disputed that the Chief Commissioner is competent to grant registration to a person as a valuer. It is submitted that the petitioner's application for continuing his registration or granting him registration afresh under section 34AE(1) could not be entertained as it was not made within the prescribed time. As already stated above, the petitioner is not claiming registration under section 34AE(1) of the Act. It is stated that, in his report made to the Chief Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss professional income as consulting civil engineer was less than Rs. 50,000 per annum during the last five years just before the date of the application. The question, however, is whether the Board should have issued the instruction adverted to above directing that, while considering the sufficiency of experience, the applicant's income should not be less than Rs. 50,000 per annum in any three years out of the last five years. If the Board does not have power to give such instruction, the orders passed by the Chief Commissioner and the Board shall have to be set aside since it is not disputed that it is mainly on the ground of the application of the criterion of income that the petitioner's application for registration as valuer has been rejected. Section 10 of the Act empowers the Board to issue instructions to subordinate authorities. This provision which is in pari materia with section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reads as follows : " 10. (1) The Board may, from time to time, issue such orders, instructions and directions to other wealth-tax authorities as it may deem fit for the proper administration of this Act, and such authorities and all other persons employed in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 80J of the Income-tax Act. In this connection, the Board issued communications. The Supreme Court observed that the opinion expressed in those communications pertained to exercise of judicial powers by the taxing authorities as it is for those authorities to determine as to the year in which the undertaking began to " manufacture or produce articles " within the meaning of section 80J of the Income-tax Act. Such communications, it was held, cannot bind the taxing authorities who have to decide the question in issue on its own merits, uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. In Radeshyam Khare v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1959 SC 107, the Supreme Court quoted, with approval, the following celebrated definition of a quasi judicial body given by Atkin L.J., as he then was, in Rex v. Electricity Commissioners [1924] 1 KB 171 (at page 116 of AIR 1959 SC) : " Whenever any body of persons having legal authority to determine questions affecting rights of subjects, and having the duty to act judicially act in excess of their legal authority, they are subject to the controlling jurisdiction of the King's Bench Division exercised in these writs. " The Supreme Court observed that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
