CIT v Hindustan Bulk Carriers

• The assessees applied to the Settlement Commission under Chapter XIX-A of the Income Tax Act 1961.
• The dispute was whether, and for what period, interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C was chargeable on income disclosed before the Commission, given that S.245D(2C) and (6A) provide for interest of a different kind.

1. How are the interest provisions in Sections 234A to 234C and S.245D to be read together?

• The statute must be read as a whole, and one provision construed with reference to the others so as to make a consistent enactment.
• It is the duty of the court to avoid a head-on clash between two sections of the same Act. Whenever possible, provisions that appear to conflict must be construed so that they harmonise; it should not lightly be assumed that Parliament gave with one hand what it took away with the other.
• One section cannot be used to defeat another unless reconciliation is impossible. A construction that reduces one provision to "useless lumber" or a "dead letter" is not harmonious construction: "to harmonise is not to destroy".
• Applying this, interest under S.234B is chargeable up to the date of the Commission's order under S.245D(4); the interest under S.245D(2C) and (6A) is a separate levy.
• Result: appeals allowed to that extent.

Apparently conflicting provisions of a statute must be read together and harmonised so that each has effect; neither may be reduced to a dead letter unless reconciliation is impossible.