Courts , Tribunal has to stand on the words used in the Act and intention of the parliament behind the construction of the statutes. However, harsh consequences may be behind the words used and its meaning. No room to modify the meaning behind the enactment.
When the words of a statue are clear, plain or unambiguous, i.e., they are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences. It has been observed by Justice Gajendra Gadkar in the case of Kanai Lal Sur Vs. Paramnidhi sadhukhan AIR 1957 SC 907 that, ‘’If the words used are capable of one construction only, then it would not be open to the courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act”.
Since the deeming fiction created under sub-section (1)does not extend to determination of the carried forward unabsorbed depreciation, losses etc., as expectedly and unequivocally provided under sub-section(2), we see no ambiguity in the provisions.
The Ld. Counsel has argued that the interpretation adopted by the Assessing Officer in carrying forward the unabsorbed depreciation etc. as determined under the regular provisions, without considering the fact that the assessee has been levied tax on notional income leads to inequitable results. We are not persuaded to accept this contention. It does not lie within the province of this contention. It does not lie within the province of this Tribunal to modify or aimed the explicit enactments in the statues merely on the ground of inequitable results.
It has been observed in the classical treatise on statutory interpretation “crazies on statue law” (7th Edition at page 89) “The argument from inconvenience and hardship is a dangerous one and is only admissible in construction where the meaning of the statue is obscure and there are alternative methods of construction”. A similar view has been taken in “Maxwell on Interpretation of statues” (12th Edition) at page 205 as under:
But convenience is not always a safe guide to construction. However difficult it may be to believe that parliament ever intended the consequences of a literal interpretation, we can only take the intention of parliament from the words which they have used in the Act and therefore the question is whether these words are capable of a more limited construction. If not, then we want to apply them as they stand, however unreasonable or unjust the consequences and however strongly we may suspect that this was not the real intention of parliament.