This appeal is filed against order of Commissioner (Appeals), dated 1-1-1983, confirming order of ITO under section 155(7A) of Income- tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), dated 21-10-1980. As will be seen below, this is in reality case of assessee seeking relief under section 155(10B) and ITO declining it for reasons given by him in above matter. As mention of wrong sections does not bar appellate authorities from applying applicable provisions of law, we are examining issue as below. 2. assessee owned certain lands at Vadaj in municipal limits of Ahmedabad. They were acquired by Government during previous year for assessment year 1974-75. In original return filed for 1974-75, assessee did not show any capital gains on this transaction, though she had received already amount of Rs. 2,46,663 from Land Acquisition Officer (LAO). Consequently, original assessment completed on 27-2-1975 under section 143(1) of Act resulted in N.A., income being Rs. 1,234 only. Whatever may be reasons for failure to file correct return, ITO did notice escape of income from assessment and initiated action under section 147 of Act and ultimately, assessed capital gains under his order dated 18-7-1979, assuming that total compensation received/receivable was only R s . 2,46,663. Actually long before 18-7-1979 when reassessment was completed, assessee had claimed enhancement in compensation which was granted by civil court on 23-12-1977. additional compensation came to Rs. 83,074 and was actually received in two instalments, viz., Rs. 73,299 (22- 11-1978) and Rs. 9,775 (30-1-1979). If ITO was made aware of this position, t h e additional compensation would perhaps have been included in reassessment dated 18-7-1979. Anyway this remained to be considered. Ultimately, when ITO did notice facts, he issued notice for action under section 155(7A). In reply, assessee took plea that no order need be passed as assessee had made requisite deposit as required under section 54E of Act. Rs. 75,000 were kept in fixed deposit with Union Bank on 28-2-1979 and Rs. 10,000 were already deposited earlier in Union Bank on 30- 5-1978. It will be seen from this that such stand is no defence against proposed order under section 155 (7A). What assessee really intended, though she did not express in clear terms is that demand under section 155(7A) would be neutralised by relief due under section 155(10B) and that, consequently, there would be no additional liability. ITO rejected claim firstly, on ground that section 54E does not apply to capital gains assessable for assessment year 1974-75 as provision came into effect from 1-4-1978 (the assessment year 1978-79) and, secondly, on ground that investment made did not fulfil conditions of section 54E even if section 54E is applicable to facts of case. This view of ITO is confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals) and assessee has now come up in appeal before us. 3. Before coming to arguments of Shri K.C. Patel, we may take note of t h e legislative background. We would like to make it clear that we have considered this aspect only for purpose of understanding background and not for interpreting relevant provisions of law. 4. Section 54E was enacted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1977, with effect from 1-4-1978. At time of piloting Bill, Hon'ble Finance Minister read: " ...I propose to exempt capital gains from tax, if sale proceeds of any assets are invested within six months in shares, bank deposits, units of Unit Trust or other preferred assets...... " intention that proposal was not retrospective for pre-1978-79 assets came in Notes on clauses (clause 13) as below: " This amendment will take effect from 1-4-1978, and will accordingly apply in relation to assessment year 1978-79 and subsequent years. " Para 17.6 of CBDT Circular No. 229 [F. No. 131(9)/77/-TPL], dated 9- 8-1977--[1978] 111 ITR (St.) 9--is worded similarly: " These provisions will take effect from 1st April, 1978, and will accordingly apply in relation to assessment year 1978-79 and subsequent years. "-- [1978] 111 ITR (St.) 26. 5. Section 155(7A) invoked by ITO was introduced by Finance Act, 1978, retrospectively, from assessment year 1974-75. As there is no dispute about this, we need not say more. 6. Section 155(10B), which enabled assessee to seek rectification of assessment in respect of capital gains by investing proceeds in prescribed manner under section 54E, was enacted by Finance Act, 1978. No specific reference to this was made in Hon'ble Finance Minister's speech. Notes on clauses, however, stated as below: " These provisions (except provisions relating to exemption under section 54E) will take effect retrospectively from 1-4-1974 and will apply accordingly in relation to assessment year 1974-75 and subsequent years. provisions relating to exemption under section 54E will take effect from 1-4- 1978, i.e., date on which said section comes into force. " Para 23.7 of CBDT Circular No. 240 [F. No. 131(2)/78-TPL], dated 17- 5-1978--[1979] 117 ITR (St.) 17--is more specific as below: " ...The new sub-section (10B) relating to recomputation of capital gain in cases falling under section 54E will take effect from 1st April, 1978, and will accordingly apply in relation to assessment year 1978-79 and subsequent years. "--[1979] 117 ITR (St.) 39. 7. Coming now to facts and arguments of case, Shri Patel submitted that benefit of section 54E is available in respect of additional compensation received after 1-4-1978, irrespective of assessment year in question because section 155(10B) opens with words "Where in assessment for any year". According to him, additional compensation received any time even within six months prior to 1-4-1978 can be invested in bank deposit and benefit of section 54E availed. In support he relied on decision of Tribunal (Ahmedabad Bench) decided as single member case in case of Govindlal Maneklal Patel (HUF) [IT Appeal No. 765 of 1982, dated 27-6- 1983], of which appellant is member. Regarding investment, in respect of 22-11-1978 (Rs. 73,299), deposit is made on 28-2-1979 (Rs. 75,000) and in respect of 30-1-1979 (Rs. 9,775), deposit of Rs. 9,000 made on 30-5-1978 should be taken as operative as required special endorsement was made on this fixed deposit in time. Reliance was placed on CBDT Circular No. 359, dated 30-5-1983-[1983] 14 TAXMAN 37 (Sec. IV). 8. learned departmental representative relied on orders of authorities below. 9. We have carefully examined facts and arguments. Capital gains have arisen on only one single item of capital asset (Vadaj land) during previous year relevant to assessment year 1974-75. fact that additional compensation was received at later date, does not change situation. Section 155(7A) fictionally relates additional capital gains to date of divestment of title to property. This fiction has to be taken to its logical end. incidents of additional compensation should, therefore, be same as those of original compensation. If ITO was aware of figure of correct compensation at time of passing of order on 19-7-1979, full value of consideration, including additional compensation, would have been included in assessment. In para 23.1 of CBDT Circular No. 240, this aspect has come out (this is mentioned not for interpreting provision but for understanding background) as below: " .... Where transfer of capital asset is by way of compulsory acquisition under any law, capital gain has to be computed by taking compensation awarded by Government as full value of consideration, even though adequacy of compensation may be questioned by assessee. On additional compensation being awarded to assessee, earlier computation can be revised within four years from end of assessment year, by taking enhanced compensation as full value of consideration received or accruing as result of transfer. This is, however, not feasible in most cases because claim for additional compensation usually gets settled after many years, when statutory period of limitation for revising earlier computation of capital gains would have expired. "--[1979] 117 ITR (St.) 37. 10. relevant part of section 54E(3) is given below (effective from 1-4- 1978): " Where transfer of original asset is by way of compulsory acquisition under any law... and compensation awarded for such acquisition... is enhanced by any court, tribunal or other authority, then, so much of capital gain,... as is attributable to enhancement of compensation... shall, if assessee has, within period of six months after date of receipt of additional compensation... invested or deposited whole or any part of such additional compensation.... additional compensation clearly refers to capital gains assessable in assessment year 1978-79. If intention was to give benefit to pre-1978-79 capital gains, enactment would have been made effective from 1-4-1974 as in case of section 155(7A). 11. Again section 155(10B), made effective from 1-4-1978, refers to section 54E(3), which as mentioned above came in force from 1-4-1978. plain r e d i n g itself would show that no further retrospective operation was contemplated. Even if there is doubt, harmonious interpretation of two clauses would leave no doubt that benefit of section 54E cannot be available to any capital gain accruing prior to assessment year 1978-79, on only ground that additional compensation was received some time during previous year for assessment year 1978-79 or later. Additional compensation, thus, acquires all incidents and characteristics of original compensation. If original compensation itself could not become subject- matter of section 54E benefit, there is no reason why additional compensation should get benefit, for sole reason that vagaries of compensation awarding authorities, led to delay. 12. Although, as mentioned above, meaning and scope of section 54E, read with section 155(10B), is clear and unambiguous, doubt has doubtless been created by Govindlal Maneklal Patel's case, and also by IT Appeal No. 169 (Bang.) of 1982, Second ITO v. B. Vasudeva Rao [1984] 9 ITD 53 (Bang.). We have gone through these judgments and we find that above issues have not been fully debated. In Govindlal Maneklal Patel's case, only issue was whether formalities regarding deposit and declaration were made in time, it being assumed that section 54E applies to capital gains arising any time (sic). In B . Vasudeva Rao's case, provisions of section 155(7A), alone have been looked into. There is no doubt that these provisions operate from 1-4-1974. implications of provisions of section 155(10B), which came from 1-4-1978 and n o t 1-4-1974, have not become subject-matter of adjudication by Tribunal. We are in respectful disagreement with view in these judgments. 13. Apart from harmonious interpretation which warrants treatment of additional compensation on par with original compensation, this is case where interpretation will have to be made with reference to consequences. One might refer to following extract from Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 12th edition: " ...'It is always proper,' Lord Reid has said 'to construe ambiguous word or phrase in light of mischief which provision is obviously designed to prevent, and in light of reasonableness of consequences which follow from giving it particular construction.' 'If language,' he said elsewhere, 'is capable of more than one interpretation, we ought to discard more natural meaning if it leads to unreasonable result, and adopt that interpretation which leads to reasonably practicable result'. In words of Romer L.J., 'the court... when faced with two possible constructions of legislative language, is entitled to look to results of adopting each of alternatives respectively in its quest for true intention of Parliament'. " 14. Possibly, ambiguity has arisen on account of opening words of section 155(10B) 'Where for any assessment year'. Actually Legislature did not think of mentioning assessment year as provision (section 54E) itself came into operation from 1-4-1978, it is true that Legislature, anxious to secure investments in banks, etc., could have thought of giving benefit in respect of pre-1978-79 gains if additional compensation was received after new provision came into force, but that such intention was not there, is clear from distinction made between section 155(7A) relating to additional compensation to original capital gains operative from 1-4-1974 on one hand and sections 155(10B) and 54E which became effective only from 1-4-1978 on other hand. If section 155(10B) is taken as purely procedural and hence applicable to additional compensation received after date, one pertaining to any assessment year, it would cause invidious and unwarranted discrimination between two assessees whose properties were acquired on same day, but who received additional compensation on different days (one before and one after 1-4-1978) for reasons beyond control of respective assessees. Such consequence could not have been contemplated. We, accordingly, hold that benefit of sections 54E and 155(10B) is not available to assessee to whom full capital gains accrued in 1974-75. 15. In view we have taken it is not necessary to examine whether bank deposits are made within statutory period. We hold that authorities below were justified in holding view they have taken. 16. Appeal is dismissed. *** SMT. SHANTABEN GOVINDLAL PATEL v. INCOME TAX OFFICER