TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (4) TMI 75
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see at a point of time when the provisions of section 54E(3) were no longer on the statute book in so far as the same were omitted by the Finance Act, 1987, With effect from April 1, 1988. The appellant's learned counsel submits that irrespective of what may be possible in other situations, there is a clear error in the present instance in affording the benefit to the assessee under the provision that was no longer on the statute book as on the date when the additional compensation was physically received. Prima facie, the submission appeared absolutely invincible because going by first principles, the contention raised by learned counsel Would be totally justified and consequently it was his submission that this court would need to interfe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the High Court has again based the quality of its interpretation on the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in one of the very important salutary judgments to which we will have occasion to make a reference, and his submission was therefore that if these are the principles of law that apply to the decision, on the present set of facts, a remand would not only be counter-productive but would be against the interests of justice because his clients would be dragged through one more round of litigation which would not serve any purpose. Mr. Sarangan points us that the law was virtually concluded by this decision and in the face of this position it is certainly open to the High Court to hear learned counsel at this stage itself and record....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....231 ITR 12. What Mr. Indrakumar submitted was that those principles would undoubtedly hold good provided according to him the sequence of events is all confined to the period between April 1, 1978, and April 1, 1988, which was the ten year gap when the provisions of the section were on the statute book. He vehemently contended that the situation gets violently altered if it can be demonstrated that the enhanced compensation was received at a, point of time after the deletion has taken place. Undoubtedly, what learned counsel was submitting was that since we are really, concerned with the consequence of the investment made, the benefit that accrues to the assessee would not arise in view of the time factor that is involved. As indicated b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere to be mechanically applied or as the appellant's learned counsel submits, if it were to be strictly applied, it would lead to an incongruous situation whereby for no fault of the assessee, the compensation received at one point of time would qualify for the benefit whereas the remainder of it would not qualify for the benefit and there is virtually no logic or justification or reason that could support such a situation. We go a stage further because it would be incorrect to dissect the compensation into different claims and to disqualify that part of it which had been received after a certain period of time for no fault of the assessees, mainly because the enhancement proceedings took time and it does not mean that because of the operat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....do not remain always so and if a construction results in equity rather than in injustice, then such construction should be preferred to the literal construction." In a subsequent decision reported in Saroj Aggarval v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 497 (SC), again the Supreme Court observed as follows : "Facts should be viewed in natural perspective, having regard to the compulsion of the circumstances of a case. Where it is possible to draw two inferences from the facts and where there is no evidence of any dishonest or improper motive on the part of the assessee, it would be just and equitable to draw such inference in such a manner that would lead to equity and justice. Too hypertechnical or legalistic approach should be avoided in looking at ....