Rule 249 — Removal from register of names of valuers and restoration.
Sub-rule (1) lets a Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Principal Director General of Income-tax or Director General of Income-tax remove a person's name from the register of valuers, but only after giving that person a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after such further inquiry as he thinks fit, and only on one of two grounds: that the name was entered in the register by error or on account of misrepresentation or suppression of a material fact, or that the person has been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment, or has been guilty of any malpractice or misconduct in his professional capacity which in that authority's opinion renders him unfit to be kept in the register.
Sub-rule (2) provides the way back: the same authority may, on application and on sufficient cause being shown, restore to the register the name of any person removed from it.
Sub-rule (3) adds a periodic review without prejudice to sub-rules (1) and (2). The authority shall, once in five years, review the performance of all registered valuers, and may remove a name where he is satisfied — again after a reasonable opportunity of being heard and such further inquiry as he thinks fit — that the person's performance is such that his name should not remain on the Register of Valuers.
Sub-rule (4) supplies the inquiry machinery. The authority may conduct the inquiry under sub-rule (1) or (3) himself or appoint an Inquiry Officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, and for the purposes of that inquiry both the authority and the Inquiry Officer have the same powers as are vested in a court under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 when trying a suit, in respect of discovery and inspection, enforcing the attendance of any person including any officer of a banking company and examining him on oath, compelling the production of books of account and other documents, and issuing commission.
A register of valuers is only worth what its worst entry, so there has to be a way to take a name off it — for a bad entry, for misconduct, and for sustained poor performance. Equally, removal ends a person's professional standing, so the rule surrounds it with a hearing, a named class of senior authority, defined grounds, and a route back. The court-like powers in sub-rule (4) exist because an inquiry into a valuer's work usually needs documents and witnesses the inquiry cannot otherwise compel.
| What | Figure | The condition on it | Where |
|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency of the performance review of all registered valuers | Once in five years | A mandatory review; removal on its basis still requires satisfaction, a hearing and any further inquiry | Sub-rule (3) |
| Minimum rank of an appointed Inquiry Officer | Not below the rank of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax | Where the authority does not conduct the inquiry under sub-rule (1) or (3) himself | Sub-rule (4) |
Removal is never automatic on any of the three routes. Even a conviction with a sentence of imprisonment operates through the authority's opinion that the person is unfit to be kept in the register, and the hearing in sub-rule (1) comes before that opinion is acted on. The performance review under sub-rule (3) is the provision most easily underestimated: the review itself is mandatory and periodic, it is expressly without prejudice to the misconduct route, and it lets a name be removed for performance alone with no allegation of malpractice — but it carries the same hearing requirement. Restoration under sub-rule (2) has no stated time bar and no list of grounds; it turns on an application and sufficient cause. The powers in sub-rule (4) belong to the inquiry, not to the removal, and they reach third parties — an officer of a banking company can be required to attend and be examined on oath, and books of account can be compelled from whoever holds them.
A registered valuer's file comes up in the five-yearly review under sub-rule (3). The Principal Chief Commissioner considers the performance material and appoints an Inquiry Officer of the rank of Joint Commissioner, who, using the sub-rule (4) powers, calls for the working papers behind a set of valuations and examines a bank officer on oath about the transactions valued. The valuer is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. On the material the authority is satisfied that the performance is such that the name should not remain on the register and removes it. The valuer may later apply under sub-rule (2), and the name may be restored on sufficient cause being shown.
A valuer meets it as a show-cause notice proposing removal, or as the correspondence of the five-yearly performance review, and afterwards as an application for restoration. A taxpayer meets it only indirectly, in whether the valuer he engaged remains on the register.
after giving that person a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks fit to make
once in five years review the performance of all the registered valuers
may, on application and on sufficient cause being shown, restore to the register the name of any person removed therefrom