JUDGMENT M. C. Desai, C.J. - The following questions have been referred by the Agricultural Income Tax Board, U.P. under Sec. 24(4) of the U.P. Agricultural Income Tax Act for the opinion of this Court: - (1) Whether the Commissioner was authorised under the provisions of the Agricultural Income Tax Act to enhance the amount of tax while he was seized of the matter on an appeal by the assessee, without previously giving an opportunity to the applicant to show cause why the tax be not enhanced against him ? (2) Was the applicant disentitled to claim deduction on account of natural calamities because the extent or nature of the calamity had not been stated in the revenue records ? (3) Whether the share of the produce given to a Sajhidar is in the nature of expenses of cultivation and should the entire produce from such land be taken as income from cultivation ? 2. This Court directed the Board to refer to it the statement of the case at the instance of the assessee who has been assessed to a tax under the Agricultural Income-Tax Act for the year 1363 Fasli. The tax is charged under section 3 on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person. Every assessee is given an option of having his agricultural income computed on an amount equal to the rent multiplied by a certain multiple or at the gross proceeds of sale of the produce of all the land subject to certain specified deductions. The assessee in this case has opted in favour of the latter method, i.e., his income was to be computed on the basis of the gross proceeds of sale of the produce of his entire land. He produced a statement of the income showing the gross proceeds of sale of the produce of all his land and of the expenditure incurred by him but his accounts were disbelieved by the Assessing Authority and it proceeded to determine to the best of his judgment the amount of the produce and the market value thereof. He produced a statement of the income showing the gross proceeds of sale of the produce of all his land and of the expenditure incurred by him but his accounts were disbelieved by the Assessing Authority and it proceeded to determine to the best of his judgment the amount of the produce and the market value thereof. R. 15 of the Rules framed by the State Government provides that in determining the amount of produce and the market value thereof under Sec. 6(3) the Assessing Authority may take into consideration the account books, if any, kept by the assessee, the average yield for the crop reported in neighbouring areas having regard to the class of soil and the situation thereof and the average prices during the year for such produce in the nearest market. The Assessing Authority in the instant case determined the amount of the produce not by taking the average yield of each crop reported in the neighbouring areas but on the basis of the average yield of each crop in a bigha regardless of the situation and the class of soil. He took the total area under each crop, multiplied it by the assumed yield of the crop per bigha and thereby arrived at the total yield of the crop. Applying the market rate he arrived at the total income from the crop. By adding up the total incomes of the different crops he arrived at the figure of Rs. 87, 251-8-6 which is a mistake for Rs. 77, 251-8-6. In adding up the total incomes from the total crops he committed this mistake. The assessee claimed that on account of an agricultural calamity, viz. floods and frost the yield from his land had suffered considerably. This was accepted by the Assessing Authority and it reduced the income by 20 per cent on account of the agricultural calamity. The assessee claimed having spent Rs. 35, 951-7-3 on cultivation and purchase of agricultural implements; the Assessing Authority allowed this deduction also. Out of the amount of Rs. 87251-8-6 he deducted the amount of Rs. 49, 352-8-0 and the balance left was Rs. 37, 899-0-6. To this income he added Rs. 1164 on account of the income from groves and charged the assessee to a tax on the total amount of Rs. 39, 063-0-6. 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner. 87251-8-6 he deducted the amount of Rs. 49, 352-8-0 and the balance left was Rs. 37, 899-0-6. To this income he added Rs. 1164 on account of the income from groves and charged the assessee to a tax on the total amount of Rs. 39, 063-0-6. 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner corrected the total of the incomes from the various crops as found by the Assessing Authority and took it to be Rs. 77, 251-8-6. He accepted the figure of the income from the groves. He allowed the deduction of Rs. 33, 937-7-3 on account of the cost of cultivation but disallowed the deduction of 20 per cent on account of loss from the agricultural calamity. Out of the entire land about 93 bighas are in possession of sajhidars and the assessee contributed towards the expenses of cultivation half and half and divided the produce between them half. and half. Half the produce of this area of 93 bighas was thus taken away by the sajhidars and the assessee realised only the other half of the produce. Whatever expenses were incurred by him over cultivation of half of the land have been included in the figure of Rs. 33, 937-7-3. He claimed that the price of half the produce taken away by the sajhidars should be deducted from his income but the Commissioner disallowed it on the ground that the sajhidars had no status except as servants, that the assessee has to be taxed on the whole income and that whatever he pays in cash or kind to the sajhidars should be treated as his expenditure. In the result the Commissioner assessed him on an income of Rs. 44, 478-1-3, a higher amount than that found by the Assessing Authority. 4. The assessee filed a revision before the Board which rejected it. It was contended before it that the Commissioner enhanced the tax on the assessee without giving him a reasonable opportunity to be heard against the enhancement. The Board found that the Commissioner had given him full opportunity to show cause against the enhancement at the time when he argued the appeal. The assessee next contended that the Commissioner acted illegally in not allowing him 20 per cent deduction allowed by the Assessing Authority on account of loss in the produce by the agricultural calamity. The Board found that the Commissioner had given him full opportunity to show cause against the enhancement at the time when he argued the appeal. The assessee next contended that the Commissioner acted illegally in not allowing him 20 per cent deduction allowed by the Assessing Authority on account of loss in the produce by the agricultural calamity. The Board's reply to this contention was that the assessee had produced no evidence in proof of any damage to the produce from floods and frost, that even if there was any damage remission in rent was granted, that even when the loss is so small that no remissions are granted entries are made in the village records of the loss and that he produced no evidence about the loss having been recorded in the village records. The last contention of the assessee that the value of half the produce given to the sajhidars should be deducted was rejected by the Board on the ground that there is no rule which allows the income of the land cultivated with the help of sajhidars to be excluded when computing the agricultural income. Thereupon the assessee made an application to the Board for reference of the questions of law arising out of its order which was refused. On a requisition by this Court it has now referred the three questions set out above. 5. It has been found by the Board that the assessee was heard by the Commissioner before he enhanced the tax. When he was heard it means that he was given an opportunity to show cause against the enhancement. So long as he was given an opportunity before the order of enhancement was passed it was the case of his being previously given an opportunity to show cause against the enhancement. If an opportunity is given even one moment prior to the order of enhancement it is given previously as much as it would have been if a notice had been given one month before the intention to enhance the tax. The proviso to Sec. 21(5) requires that no enhancement of an assessment shall be made by the Commissioner unless the assessee has had a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against it. The word "previously" used by the Board in the question is not to be found in the proviso. The proviso to Sec. 21(5) requires that no enhancement of an assessment shall be made by the Commissioner unless the assessee has had a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against it. The word "previously" used by the Board in the question is not to be found in the proviso. What we understand by the question is whether it was necessary to give an opportunity to the assessee to show cause against the proposed enhancement by a notice served on or given to him before the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal and our answer to the question is in the negative. No particular notice is required by the proviso to Sec. 21(5) to be given to the assessee. So long as he was made aware of the intention to enhance the tax and he was heard against the proposed enhancement and he did not want any more or other opportunity in the form of time etc. the tax could be enhanced even if no notice of the proposal was served upon him or given to him at least a day prior to the date on which the appeal was heard. 6. Coming to the second question, we find that there is no law which lays down that an assessee is disentitled to claim deduction on account of a agricultural calamity on the ground that the nature and the extent of the calamity have not been entered in the revenue records. Actually there is no question of an assessee being entitled to claim any deduction on account of loss in the produce resulting from a natural calamity in a case governed by Sec. 6(2) (b). The reason is obvious; when the assessee is assessed on the gross proceeds of sale of the produce of his land he will be assessed on the gross proceeds of sale of whatever is produced on his land. If on account of a calamity the produce is very little the gross proceeds of sale will be proportionately very little and the assessee will be taxed on a very small amount. It is only when the income is computed under Sec. 6(2) (a) that there arises the question of deducting something on account of a calamity. If on account of a calamity the produce is very little the gross proceeds of sale will be proportionately very little and the assessee will be taxed on a very small amount. It is only when the income is computed under Sec. 6(2) (a) that there arises the question of deducting something on account of a calamity. In the present case though the Assessing Authority assessed the assessee on the gross proceeds of sale of the produce, he assessed the gross proceeds of sale on the basis of yield in a normal year. He did not base the estimate of the produce on the basis of actual produce in the same year in similar land in the neighbourhood. He estimated the produce on the assumption that a bigha of land produced a certain quantity of a particular crop in a normal year. When this was the basis of his assessment of the produce he should have taken into consideration the abnormality in the circumstances arising from floods and frost and he did so by reducing the produce by one fifth. He reduced the produce by one-fifth not on the ground that the assessee was entitled to a deduction on account of the calamity but on the ground that the actual produce was one-fifth less than what it should normally have been. It was really not a question of allowing a deduction to the assessee; he did not deduct anything out of what he found to be the actual produce. What he did was to find the actual produce to be one-fifth less than what it would have been in a normal year. His duty was to find the actual produce and he found it by taking what the normal produce would have been and considering to what extent the calamity reduced the normal produce. The Commissioner, therefore, acted illegally in not allowing the deduction of 20 per cent. The question what was the actual produce depended upon what would have been the normal produce if there had been no calamity and to what extent the calamity reduced the normal produce; it did not at all depend upon whether any entries about the nature and the extent of the calamity were made in the revenue records or not. The question what was the actual produce depended upon what would have been the normal produce if there had been no calamity and to what extent the calamity reduced the normal produce; it did not at all depend upon whether any entries about the nature and the extent of the calamity were made in the revenue records or not. Entries in the revenue records were not the only evidence of calamity and the Assessing Authority accepted that the calamity had occurred and it has not been found by the Commissioner and the Board that it had not occurred. 7. Coming to the last question, we find that the departmental authorities have gone wrong. The assessee is to be charged on the income realised by him. In respect of 93 bighas and odd land given by him to sajhidars he realised only half the income from its produce. The other half of the produce was taken away by the sajhidars and this income was not realised by him at all. Since he is to be charged on what he himself realised he could be charged only on the value of half the produce and not on the value of the whole produce. No question then would have arisen of his being entitled to any deduction on account of anything taken away by the sajhidars. From the statement of facts it appears that he did let the sajhidars take away half the produce and further that whatever expenditure he incurred in cultivation of this land and was included in the amount of Rs. 35, 937-7-3 was in addition. Consequently, he was entitled to a deduction of this amount of Rs. 33, 937-7-3 and his income from this land should have been taken to be what he actually realised, i.e. half of what it was estimated to be by the Assessing Authority after allowing a deduction of 20 per cent on account of the calamity. There is no question of the half share in the produce taken away by the sajhidars being in the nature of expenses of cultivation. The question really is what was the assessee's income from this land and it was the value of the produce that he got, i.e., half the produce of the entire land. 8. There is no question of the half share in the produce taken away by the sajhidars being in the nature of expenses of cultivation. The question really is what was the assessee's income from this land and it was the value of the produce that he got, i.e., half the produce of the entire land. 8. We direct that a copy of this judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar be sent to the Revision Board as required by Sec. 24(7). We make no order about costs of this reference.