JUDGMENT Chatterjee, J. - This is a Reference u/s 63(1) of the Bengal Agricultural income tax Act of 1944. The Court is asked to answer a question which is in the following terms: Whether, in disposing of the appeal u/s 35 of the Act, the Assistant Commissioner was right in including a new item of income which was not covered by the assessment made by the Agricultural income tax Officer, although the net result was a reduction of the total income as assessed by the Agricultural income tax Officer. 2. The facts are shortly these. The Agricultural income tax Officer assessed the Assessee on the income of Rs. 45,404-7-0. There was an appeal preferred by the Assessee and on appeal, the agricultural income was reduced to Rs. 35,487. But the Assistant Commissioner on appeal included a new item, of income, namely, Rs. 3,470 for straw. We are informed by Mr. Sen, learned advocate, for the income tax authorities, that this was done on the footing of Rs. 10 per acre of straw growing on a total area of 347 acres. The question is--Was he justified in adding this new item or figure of Rs. 3,470, although the result might be a reduction in the total incomer? 3. In my opinion, it is immaterial whether the net result means reduction or an enhancement. The powers of the Assistant Commissioner are derived from Section 35(4)(a)(i) of the Act. The (sic) portion of the section states that, in disposing of an appeal, the Assistant Commissioner may, in the case of an order assessment, confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. (sic) there is a proviso to Sub-section (4), which states that the Assistant Commissioner shall not enhance an assessment or a penalty or reduce a refund unless the Appellant has had a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement or such reduction. 4. The Appellate Tribunal rightly points out that Sections 30, 31 and 34 of the Indian income tax Act correspond to Sections 34, 35 and 38 of the Bengal Agricultural income tax Act, 1944. Our attention as been, drawn to the case of Jagarnath Therani v. Commissioner of income tax ILR (1925) Pat. 385. Ross and Kulwant Sahay JJ. 4. The Appellate Tribunal rightly points out that Sections 30, 31 and 34 of the Indian income tax Act correspond to Sections 34, 35 and 38 of the Bengal Agricultural income tax Act, 1944. Our attention as been, drawn to the case of Jagarnath Therani v. Commissioner of income tax ILR (1925) Pat. 385. Ross and Kulwant Sahay JJ. in that case held lat on an appeal against an assessment u/s 31 of the income tax Act, 1922, the Assistant Commissioner of income tax has no power to enhance the assessment made by the income tax Officer by assessing new sources of income. He cannot make a new assessment in appeal by adding new heads or (sic) of income which were not the subject-matter of the assessment appealed against. 5. In the above case Ross J. observed: The learned Government Pleader contended that the terms of Section 31(3)(a) are general and give power without qualification to enhance the assessment. Now his section relating to appeals is enacted for the benefit for the subject and also, to the limited extent therein stated, for the benefit of the Crown. But the abject-matter of the appeal is the assessment and the scope of the appeal, must, in my opinion, be limited by the subject-matter. The appellate authority has to power to travel beyond the subject-matter of the appeal and for all the reasons advanced by the Appellant, is in my opinion not entitled to assess new (sic) of income. To do so would not in reality be enhancing the assessment, out adding a new assessment to the old, the subject-matter being different. 6. Our attention has also been drawn to the case of Commissioner income tax v. Shah Nawaz Khan of Mamdot ILR (1937) Lah. 350. The learned Fudges pointed out there that Section 31 empowered an Assistant Commissioner of income tax in general terms to enhance an assessment, but that power cannot be exercised irrespective of the limitations imposed by Section 34 of the Act. Section 34 arms the income tax Officer with a special power to Rectify his mistakes and to save the exchequer from any loss accruing from his negligence but it also protects the Assessee against the arbitrary use of this section and sets a limit of time within which such mistakes can be rectified. Section 34 arms the income tax Officer with a special power to Rectify his mistakes and to save the exchequer from any loss accruing from his negligence but it also protects the Assessee against the arbitrary use of this section and sets a limit of time within which such mistakes can be rectified. Section 34 is confined to the items of income that have escaped assessment and has no reference to the total income of the Assessee. Thus, the Assistant Commissioner is not competent u/s 31(3)(a) enhance the assessment so as to include a new item of (sic) which had nothing to do with the subject-matter of the (sic) before him. The learned Judges, Addison and Din (sic) JJ., followed the Patna case cited above. 7. In our view, the Patna High Court has laid down the (sic) law and the Appellate Officer had no jurisdiction to include new source of income. It was beyond the ambit of his authorise to make a new assessment, which he purported to do by including the item of straw. The point that impresses me most is that would work great injustice as the Assessee had no notice of to new claim and would lose his right of appeal, which the status confers on him, if we accede to the argument put forward by the revenue authorities. We answer the question formulated in the statement of case in the negative. 8. We need only point out that there is no substance in the contention put forward on behalf of the Commissioner Agricultural income tax that in this case there has been reduction of the total assessment on appeal. Really, there should have been a further reduction by Rs. 3,470 and what the Appellate Officer purported to do in appeal was to make a (sic) assessment which he had no authority to do. 9. The Assessee is entitled to the costs of this Reference, the hearing fee being assessed at five gold mohurs. Harries, J. 10. I agree.