ORDER : P.V. DIXIT, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 23 (2) of the Bhopal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1953, and the question is referred for decision are:- (i) Whether the claim of the said Company to carry forward the loss of Rs. 7,82,183-11-9 during 1952-53 can be set off against the profits derived in 1953-54 and assessable during the assessment year 1954-55 in accordance with the provisions of the Bhopal State Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1953. (ii) Whether the claim of the applicant Company, for a deduction of Rs. 20,269-0-0 on account of depreciation on tractors, pick-ups add carts from the agricultural income derived in 1953-54 and assessable in the assessment year 1954-55 is admissible under the Bhopal State Agricultural Income Tax Act 1953. 2. During the assessment year 1954-55 the assessee claimed that he was entitled to carry forward a loss of 7,82,183-11-9 incurred in the year 1952-53 against the profits of the relevant previous year 1953-54. The assessing authority disallowed this claim on the ground that there was no provision in the Act or in the rules framed thereunder for carrying forward losses of one year to be set off against the profits of the following year. It is not necessary to consider whether in the absence of any provision in the Act or in the Rules for the carrying forward of losses the losses incurred in any year can be carried and set off against the Agricultural income of another year. The reason is that here the assessee claims to carry forward the loss which it says was incurred during the year 1952-53. It has been recently held by this Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. M/s Jethmal Girdharlal (1960 JLJ 577) that the Bhopal State Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1953 came into force on the 15 July 1953 and that therefore as there was no assessment year within the meaning of the Act beginning from 1 June 1953 to 31 may 1954 there could be no previous year commencing on 1 1952 and ending on 31 May 1953. Thus, the agricultural income received during the period from 1 June 1952 to 31 May 1953 is not liable to tax under the Act, and if this income is not liable to tax it necessarily follows that any loss incurred by a person in that year cannot be set off against the income received in the following year. Shri Mehta appearing for the assessee did not dispute this position. 3. The assessee's claim for a deduction of Rs. 20,469 on account of depreciation on tractors, pick-ups, and carts rests on section 6 of the Act. This provision lays down that the agricultural income shall at the option of the assessee be computed in accordance with clause (a) or clause (b) of sub section (2). It was argued that the depreciation allowance was a permissible deduction under sub clause (v) of clause (b), and that even if the allowance did not fall under that sub-clause, it was admissible on ordinary commercial principles. The argument was that the tax was on agricultural income and income could only be ascertained after allowance for loss or depreciation. Learned counsel for the assessee relied on Income tax Commissioner vs. Chitnavis 59 IA 290. 4. The argument advanced on behalf of the assessee that depreciation allowance is a permissible deduction under sub-clause (v) cannot be acceded to. This sub-clause speaks of a deduction on account of any expenses Incurred in the previous year on the maintenance of any capital asset. There must be an expenditure before any deduction on account of the expenditure can be claimed under sub-clause (v). As in a depreciation allowance there is no question of incurring any expenditure, a deduction on account of depreciation cannot be claimed under sub-clause (v). We do not think that it is necessary to consider in this case the general question whether even if depreciation allowance does not fall within any of the sub-clauses of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 6 it can be allowed on the connotation of the word 'income' according to the ordinary commercial principles. For, even if it held that on general principles depreciation allowance must be deducted in computing income, it is clear that the assessee cannot get a deduction for deterioration twice over, first deducting the actual expenses of repair, maintenance, and replacement, and then by deducting an additional estimate for the same thing under the head of deprecation. For, even if it held that on general principles depreciation allowance must be deducted in computing income, it is clear that the assessee cannot get a deduction for deterioration twice over, first deducting the actual expenses of repair, maintenance, and replacement, and then by deducting an additional estimate for the same thing under the head of deprecation. Here, the assessee has been allowed to deduct Rs. 42,328 under sub-clauses (v) and (vi) of clause (b) on account of expenses incurred in the previous year on the maintenance of tractors and pick-ups and on replacement of some parts of these implements no question, therefore, of the assessee getting a reduction again of Rs. 20,469 for deterioration can arise. 5. In this connexion, it would be useful to refer to Caledonian Railway Company vs. Banks I. T. C. 487 where the question of grant of an allowance under section 12 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1878 on account of the diminished value due to wear and tear of any machinery and appliances was considered. That section directed the Commissioners in assessing the profits and gains of a trade to allow such deductions as they thought it just and reasonable to represent the diminished value by reason of wear and tear during the year of any machinery and appliances used for the purposes of the concern and belonging to the person or company by whom the concern was carried on. It was held that the assessee could not deduct the actual expenses of repairs, renewals and replacement, and then proceed to claim an additional deduction under the general section of the statute for the same thing under the guise, of wear and tear. The decision in the Caledonian Railwan Company's case (supra) laid down a general principle of deduction for depreciation and the actual expenses of repair, renewal, and replacement. As here the assessee allowed a deduction on account of maintenance and replacement, it cannot claim a deduction again for wear and tear of tractors and pick-ups under the head of depreciation. 6. Learned counsel for the assesses did not contest the general principle laid down in the Calodonian Railway's case that a deduction for deterioration twice over, first by deducting the actual expense of repair and renewal and then by deducting an additional estimate for the same thing cannot be allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the assesses did not contest the general principle laid down in the Calodonian Railway's case that a deduction for deterioration twice over, first by deducting the actual expense of repair and renewal and then by deducting an additional estimate for the same thing cannot be allowed. He, however, pressed us to decide the question whether as a matter of law in a case where the assessee does not claim any deduction on account of expenses incurred on maintenance or replacement a deduction on account of depreciation allowance can be made under the Bhopal Agricultural Income-tax Act. As the question does not arise on the facts of the case any expression of opinion would be a mere obiter dictum. The question may arise directly for decision in another case. We, therefore, decline to answer the general question posed by learned counsel for the assessee. We would accordingly answer the second question by saying that as the assessee has been allowed a deduction under sub-clauses (v) and (vi) of clause (b) of section 6 (2) no deduction on account of depreciation on tractors pick-ups and carts can be allowed to the assessee for the assessment year in question. There will be no order for costs.