Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6.15. In Sultana Begum Vrs. Prem Chand Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 373, the following principles relating to harmonious construction has been propounded:

"15. On a conspectus of the case-law indicated above, the following principles are clearly discernible:
(1) It is the duty of the courts to avoid a head-on clash between two sections of the Act and to construe the provisions which appear to be in conflict with each other in such a manner as to harmonise them.
(2) The provisions of one section of a statute cannot be used to defeat the other provisions unless the court, in spite of its efforts, finds it impossible to effect reconciliation between them.
(3) It has to be borne in mind by all the courts all the time that when there are two conflicting provisions in an Act, which cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect should be given to both. This is the essence of the rule of "harmonious construction".

(4) The courts have also to keep in mind that an interpretation which reduces one of the provisions as a "dead letter" or "useless lumber" is not harmonious construction.

(5) To harmonise is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it otiose."

6.16. The case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vrs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, (2003) 3 SCC 57, proceeded to observe that:

"16. The courts will have to reject that construction which will defeat the plain intention of the legislature even though there may be some inexactitude in the language used. (See Salmon Vrs. Duncombe, (1886) 11 AC 627 = 55 LJPC 69 = 55 LT 446 (PC), AC at p. 634, Curtis Vrs. Stovin, (1889) 22 QBD 513 = 58 LJQB 174 = 60 LT 772 (CA) referred to in S. Teja Singh case, AIR 1959 SC 352 = (1959) 35 ITR 408.)

6.17. Upon harmonious construction of the provisions of the IT Act so far as is necessary, it can be affirmatively stated that if adequate opportunity is not granted to an assessee and there has been irregular assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer, it is quite obvious that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice.

6.18. The circular referred to by Sri Sidhartha Ray, learned Senior Advocate would point out that adherence to the principles of natural justice before assessment is expedient to avoid prejudice. Noteworthy here to have reference to said Instruction No.20/2015, dated 29.12.2015 which reads thus: