JUDGMENT J.M. Lal, J. - In compliance with an order dated February 11, 1957 passed by this court under Sub-sec. (4) of Section 24 of the U. P. Agricultural Income-Tax Act, 1948 (to be hereinafter called as the Act) the following reference has been made by the Revision Board under Sub-sec. (1) of the said section. The question of law for the purpose of the present reference was whether in computing the total agricultural income tax of the assessee the loss, which he had incurred under Section 6(2) (b) should be set off against his income under Section 5. 2. Section (1) of the Act which is the charging section provides that agricultural income-tax and super tax at the rate of rates specified in the schedule shall be charged for each year in accordance with, and subject to the, provisions of this Act and rules framed under clauses (a), (b) and (e) of Sub-sec. (2) of Section 4, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person. The expression "total agricultural income" has been defined in Sub-sec. (16) of Section 2 as meaning the aggregate of the amounts of agricultural income of the different classes specified in Secs. 5 and 6. determined respectively in the manner laid down the said sections and includes all receipts of the description specified in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-sec. (1) of Section 2. In Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 2 "agricultural income has been defined as : (a) any rent or revenue derived from land which is used for agricultural purposes and is either assessed to land revenue in the Uttar Pradesh or is subject to a local rate or cess assessed and collected by an officer of the State Government. In Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 2 "agricultural income has been defined as : (a) any rent or revenue derived from land which is used for agricultural purposes and is either assessed to land revenue in the Uttar Pradesh or is subject to a local rate or cess assessed and collected by an officer of the State Government. (b) any income derived from such land by -- (i) agriculture or (ii) the performance by a cultivator or receiver of rent in kind of any process ordinarily employed by a cultivator or receiver of rent in kind render the procedure raised or received by him fit to be taken to market or (iii) the sale by a cultivator or receiver of rent in kind of the produce raised or received by him, in respect of which no process has been performed other than a process of the nature described in sub-clause (ii), (c) any income derived from any building owned and occupied by the receiver of the rent revenue of any such land, or occupied by the cultivator or the receiver of rent-in-kind of any land with respect to which, or the produce of which, any operation mentioned in paragraphs (ii) and (iii) of sub-clause (b) is carried on. Provided that the building is on or in the immediate vicinity of the land, and is a building which the receiver of the rent or revenue or the cultivator or receiver of the rent kind by reason of his connection with the land, requires as a dwelling house, or as a store house, or other out-building". 3. On the items that goes to constitute agricultural income is the, income derived by an assessee from and by agriculture or performance of any process ordinarily employed by a cultivator to render the produce raised by him fit to be taken to market or by the sale of the produce , raised by him in respect of which no process has been performed. The method of computing this item of agricultural income has been laid down in Section 6 which provides that the agricultural income mentioned in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause (b) of sub-clause (1) of Sec.2 shall at the option of the assessee be computed in accordance, with clause (a) or clause (b) of Sub-sec. (2). The method of computing this item of agricultural income has been laid down in Section 6 which provides that the agricultural income mentioned in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause (b) of sub-clause (1) of Sec.2 shall at the option of the assessee be computed in accordance, with clause (a) or clause (b) of Sub-sec. (2). Clause (a) gives an option to the assessee to accept the income derived by him from agriculture on the basis of the rent of the land as multiplied by such multiple as the Land Reforms Commissioner may fix and after making such deductions in respect of the agricultural calamities as may be prescribed. The advantage of this method of calculation is that the assessee need not keep elaborate accounts and his income can be assumed for the purposes of taxation in this rough and ready manner even though ,the actual income may he more or less than this amount. 4. The other option given to assesssee is to maintain accounts about the net value of the produce raised by him on the land after making certain deduction as provided in sub-classes (i) to (v) of clause (b). It is possible that due to some agricultural calamity the actual value of the produce may be less than the sum total of those expenses which have to be deducted under sub-clauses (i) to (v). The net result in such a case would be a minus figure.. 5. The question that now arises is whether in calculating the total agricultural income by Sec..2(1) is required to be calculated by adding up the items mentioned in clauses (a),(b) and (c) of that sub-section. if the figure under item (b) which, relates to the `net income derived from agriculture carried by the assessee on the land is a minus figure, meaning there by that the cultivation as actually resulted in a loss to the assessee, that minus figure.has to be deducted from the plus figures found under items (a) and (c). We think there is no reason not to deduct this figure in -,working out the total income. There is really no question of set off but it is only an arithmetical manner of addition of a few items one of which is minus and the others are plus. It is the sum total of these items that gives the total agricultural income. There is really no question of set off but it is only an arithmetical manner of addition of a few items one of which is minus and the others are plus. It is the sum total of these items that gives the total agricultural income. If that total itself is a minus figure, obviously no tax can be levied. At the same time, loss cannot be carried over to a subsequent year because there is no provision in the Act for the carry over of the loss to another year. Our attention has been drawn to the word "respectively" used in Sub-sec. (16) of Section 2 which contains the definition of "total agricultural income". In our opinion this word "respectively only shows that the different items of income mentioned in clause (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-sec. (1) of Section 2 have to be determined separately in the mariner laid down in Secs. 5 and 6. After that determination has been made, all these figures relating to the items (a), (b) and (c) including a minus have to be added together. It does not certainly mean that if the figure arrived at after calculating in that manner laid down in Section 6(1) (b) the set income from actual cultivation of land by the assessee, is a minus. figure, that has to be ignored and only the plus figures relating to receipts of rentals from tenants and from the occupiers of the agricultural buildings calculated in the manner laid down in Section 5 and Section 2(1) (c) read with Section 7 have to be taken in consideration for arriving at the total agricultural income of the assessee. That would obviously be suite unjust and is not warranted by the language of Section 2(16) or Section 6(1)(b). We accordingly answer this reference in the affirmative. In the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.