Judgment :- (The judgment of the Court was delivered by P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA,J.) The appellant/revenue has filed the above Tax Case Appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras B Bench dated 22.05.2009 in ITA.No.1951/Mds/2008 by raising the following substantial question of law. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the investment in the new asset for the purpose of deduction under Section 54F need not be out of sale consideration received on sale of the original asset?" 2. The assessee/respondent is a Chartered Accountant by profession. He is also practising as a surveyor and loss assessor since 1982 and he is also Director in M/s Srivatsan Surveyors Private Limited. The assessment year is 2000-2001 and the corresponding accounting year ended on 31.03.2000. During the year the assessee/respondent sold his insurance survey loss business to the said company for a price of Rs.56 lakhs. The respondent also filed a return of income on 31.10.2000 admitting the income of Rs.47,39,790/-. The said return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Later the assesee/ respondent filed revised return on 26.03.2002 admitting long term capital gain of Rs.56 lakhs and also claimed exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act. In the assessment proceedings relating to the assessment year 2000-2001 in the case of M/s Srivatsan Surveyors Private Limited, the concerned assessing officer verified that the company had purchased goodwill for a price of Rs.56 lakhs from the assessee, who was the one of the Directors of the said company. On verification, it was found that the cost of the goodwill works out to only Rs.12,06,350/- as against Rs.56 lakhs shown in the records of the company. The assessing officer was of the view that there was an escaped income and has issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act on the assessee. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act and determined the total income at Rs.59,39,790/-. While completing the assessment, the assessing officer worked out the value of the goodwill only at Rs.12,00,000/-as against Rs.56 lakhs and assessed Rs.12,00,000/- under the head "long term capital gains". The balance sum of Rs.44 lakhs was treated as business income under Section 28(iv) of the Act. While completing the assessment, the assessing officer worked out the value of the goodwill only at Rs.12,00,000/-as against Rs.56 lakhs and assessed Rs.12,00,000/- under the head "long term capital gains". The balance sum of Rs.44 lakhs was treated as business income under Section 28(iv) of the Act. Further, the assessing officer also rejected the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 54F of the Act, since the house property has been purchased for a sum of Rs.56,23,760/- by the assessee not out of the consideration received on account of transfer of the capital asset. Aggrieved by that order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The said Commissioner held that option is given to the assessee by Section 54F to invest even within a period of one year before the date on which the transfer takes place and therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the assessing officer. Aggrieved by that order, the Revenue has filed the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal remanded the matter in respect of the valuation of the goodwill and in respect of the claim of exemption under Section 54F of the Act, the Tribunal allowed the claim and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. Aggrieved by that order, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue submitted that the Tribunal is wrong in allowing deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act. It was contended that the assessee has not purchased the property out of the sale consideration of the transferred assets and therefore, the assessing officer is right in disallowing the claim of the assessee and also the assessee had not received any money as consideration from M/s Srivatsan (P) Ltd till the date of Registration of the property. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revenue and perused the materials available on record. 5. The assessee purchased a property for a sum of Rs.56,23,740/- and the registration was made on 18.08.2000. The assessee had not received any sale consideration of Rs.56 lakhs from M/s Srivatsan Surveyors Private Limited till the date of registration of the property. 6. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revenue and perused the materials available on record. 5. The assessee purchased a property for a sum of Rs.56,23,740/- and the registration was made on 18.08.2000. The assessee had not received any sale consideration of Rs.56 lakhs from M/s Srivatsan Surveyors Private Limited till the date of registration of the property. 6. Section 54F of the Act was introduced by the Finance Act, 1982 with effect from 01.04.1983. 5. The assessee purchased a property for a sum of Rs.56,23,740/- and the registration was made on 18.08.2000. The assessee had not received any sale consideration of Rs.56 lakhs from M/s Srivatsan Surveyors Private Limited till the date of registration of the property. 6. Section 54F of the Act was introduced by the Finance Act, 1982 with effect from 01.04.1983. The said provision reads as follows: " (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereinafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or (two years) after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, a residential house (hereinafter in this section referred to as the new asset), the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say,-- (a) if the cost of the new asset is not less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, the whole of such capital gain shall not be charged under section 45; (b) if the cost of the new asset is less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, so much of the capital gain as bears to the whole of the capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where— (a) the assessee,--(i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset; or (ii) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset; or (iii) constructs any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of three years after the date of transfer of the original asset; and (b) the income from such residential house, other than the one residential house owned on the date of transfer of the original asset, is chargeable under the head "Income from house property". 7. 7. The Board, in Circular No.346 dated 30.03.1992 reported in 138 ITR 24 (Statute), has explained the scope and effect of the above provision, which reads as follows: "20.1 Under the existing provisions of the Income-tax Act, any profits and gains arising from the transfer of a long-term capital asset are charged to tax on a concessional basis. For this purpose, a capital asset which is held by an assessee for a period of more than 36 months is treated as a "long-term" capital asset. 20.2 With a view to encouraging house construction, the Finance Act, 1982, has inserted a new section 54F to provide that where any capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, other than a residential house, and the assessee purchases within one year before or after the date on which the transfer took place or constructs within a period of 3 years after the date of transfer, a residential house the capital gain arising from the transfer will be treated in a concessional manner as under:- (i) If the cost of the house that has been purchased or constructed is not less than the net consideration in respect of the capital asset transferred, the entire capital gain arising from the transfer will be exempt from tax. (ii) If the cost of the newly acquired house is less than the net consideration in respect of the capital asset transferred, the exemption from long-term capital gain will be granted proportionately on the basis of investment of net consideration either for purchase or construction of the residential house. This concession will not be available in a case where the assessee owns on the date of the transfer of the original asset any residential house, or purchases within the period of one year after such date, or constructs, within the period of three years after such date, any other residential house. Where the assessee purchases or constructs any other residential house, within the period aforesaid, the exemption under the proposed provision, if allowed, shall stand forfeited and the amount of capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset, which was not charged to tax, shall be allowed to be the income chargeable under the head "Capital gain" relating to long-term capital assets of the previous year in which such residential house is so purchased or constructed. "Net consideration" in respect of the transfer of a capital asset means the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset after deduction of any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer." 8. From a reading of the above provision as well as the Boards circular, the conditions, which are necessary for the applicability of Section 54F, read as follows: (1) The assessee should be an individual or a Hindu undivided family; (2) The capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house; (3) The assessee must purchase the property within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place; and (4) The assessee constructs any residential house, other than the new asset within a period of three years after the date of transfer of the original asset. 9. After going through the above provision and objects behind the same, we are of the view that the assessee had satisfied all the conditions. The assessing officer tends to assume that in order to get deduction under Section 54F of the Act, the assessee has to invest in new asset within a period of one year out of sale consideration and held in paragraph 9 of the order, which reads as follows: "Assessee has claimed deduction under Section 54F on the ground that he purchased a property for a sum of Rs.56,23,740/-the registration of which was made on 18.8.2000. It is seen that the assessee has not received any amount as consideration from M/s Srivatsan Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., till the date of registration of the property. In view of the fact that the property has been purchased by the assessee not out of consideration received on account of transfer of the capital asset deduction u/s 54F is not allowed." 10. Section 54F provides option to the assessee to invest even within a period of one year before the date on which the transfer takes place. No such precondition to that effect is imposed by the provision. Only the assessing officer assumed that there is a pre-condition which is not contemplated by the provision. Section 54F is clear, unambiguous and plain. It is only a mere presumption and assumption of the Revenue. No such precondition to that effect is imposed by the provision. Only the assessing officer assumed that there is a pre-condition which is not contemplated by the provision. Section 54F is clear, unambiguous and plain. It is only a mere presumption and assumption of the Revenue. It is well settled principle that taxing statute shall have to be interpreted on the basis of the language. The often quoted famous observations of Rowlatt,J. in the case of Cape Brandy Syndicate V. I.R.C., reported in (1921) 1 KB 64 is very relevant and at page 71 it has been held as follows: "in a taxing statute one has to look mainly at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used." Section 54F encourage investment in residential house and the same is required to be interpreted in such a manner as not to nullify the object. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled to the relief under Section 54F and confirmed the concurrent findings given by both the Appellate authorities. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue is also unable to furnish any material or evidence or case law or compelling reason to take a contrary view of the Tribunal. 11. For the fore-going reasons, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal is in conformity with law. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that no question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for consideration. Accordingly, the tax case appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No costs.