Dinesh Jain vs Income Tax Officer 11 (2)2 Mumbai on 21 July, 2014
"15. Insofar as relevance of Section 11 of the General Clauses Act is
concerned, it needs to be noted that here the relevant amendment
prescribing distance to be counted must be aerial has come into force
w.e.f. 1st April, 2014. The need of amendment itself shows that, in
order to avoid any confusion, the exercise became necessary. The
Parliament noticed the Judgments being delivered and therefore,
emphatically pointed out aerial distance as the relevant norm. This
exercise to clear the confusion, therefore, shows that benefit thereof
must be given to the assessee. It is settled law that, in such matters,
when there is any doubt or confusion, the view in favour of the assessee
needs to be adopted. The Circular No.3/240, dt.24.1.2014 shows vide
clause no.4 -amendment in definition of 'Capital Asset' and clause 4.5
dealing with applicability expressly stipulates that it takes effect from
20
ITA No. 372/JP/2015
Dinesh Kumar Jain Vs ITO
1.4.2014 and therefore, prospectively applies in relation to the
assessment year 2014-15 and subsequent assessment years. Hence, the
question whether prior to the said assessment year 2014-15 the
Authorities erred in computing the distance by road does not arise at all.
The IT cannot be questioned on that ground. For these reasons, Section
11 of the General Clauses Act also has no application in the present
matter where the ITAT was concerned with the assessment year 2009-
10 or prior to the time when amendment took effect."