The petitioner had sold two properties . From the sale consideration amount, Rs.1,15,00,000/- was deposited by the petitioner in the Capital Gain Account Scheme, 1988. The return of income for the Assessment year 2013-14 was filed on 14.7.2013 and exemption was claimed under S. 54F of the Act. In the meantime, the petitioner had purchased a flat for Rs.21,32,470/- (including stamp duty and registration) on 20.08.2013 before the expiry of three years from the date of the transfer of the capital asset. The revenue issued the notice impugned, to bring the unutilized capital gain to tax as per S.  54 F(4) of the Act. In other words, the unutilized amount (Rs.1,15,00,000 – Rs.21,32,470 deducting exemption) after the expiry of three years from the date of transfer of the original capital is proposed to be subjected to tax under Section 45 of the Act.  On writ the the petitioner argued that the scope of Section 54F(4) of the Act and the proviso thereof is not properly appreciated by the respondent. The petitioner had deposited the sale consideration received on transfer of certain capital assets in the capital gain account scheme with the bankers and utilized Rs.21,32,470/- out of Rs.1,15,00,000/- capital gain amount deposited which squarely falls under the proviso to section 54F(4) of the Act.  High Court held that the respondent failed to interpret the phrase ‘wholly or partly’ enumerated in the proviso in a right perspective. According to the petitioner, the amount deposited under Section 54F (4) of the Act if utilized partly for the purchase or construction of the new asset within three years, then the unutilized amount shall not be liable to tax under Section 45 of the Act.  it is clear that the proviso appended to Section 58[4][f] has to be read as a whole along with the Clauses [a] and [b] therein which would explain the real intendment of the phrase “not utilized wholly or partly”. In the context, the proviso to Section 54 F[4] becomes an integral part of the enactment acquiring the tenor and colour of the main provision. To make the provision workable, the arguments of the petitioner that the Clauses [a] and [b] of the proviso need not be addressed to, cannot be countenanced for the reasons aforesaid. Thus, it can be held that on reading of the provision as a whole along with Clauses [a] and [b] to the proviso, the intention of the Legislature would be gathered that the unutilized capital gain amount under Section 54 F[4] has to be charged under Section 45 as income of the previous year, after the expiry of three years from the date of sale of the capital asset which in the present case is the assessment year 2016-17  In the circumstances, the assessee is entitled to the withdrawal of the amount deposited under Sub-Section (4) of Section 54F of the Act under the capital gain account subject to deduction of tax applicable to the case on hand.  (AY. 2016-17) (SJ)