JUDGMENT Jagannatha Shetty, J.—The following question has been referred under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 : "Whether the income derived from the firm M/s. Batli Munavalli & Co., Hubli, through the representative of the assesses-firm is liable for Income Tax in the hands of the assesses-firm ?" 2. By mere narration of the facts, the answer to the question will reveal itself. 3. The assessee is a registered firm with six partners. The assessment year is 1977-78. One of the partners by name Sri Shankarappa Munavalli became a partner in another firm called "M/s. Batli Munavalli & Co., Hubli" on behalf of the assesses-firm. The share income from the firm of M/s. Batil Munavalli & Co., Hubli, was shown in part-III of the return as not assessable on the ground that it amounts to double taxation. 4. The Income Tax Officer rejected this plea. He assessed the sum of Rs. 71,279 in the assessment of the assesses-firm. 5. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner has observed that it has been admitted by the assessee's representative that the partner, sri Shankarappa Munavalli, is a partner in the firm of M/s. Batli Munavalli & Co., Hubli, on behalf of the assessee and, therefore, the beneficiary partner is the assesses-firm only. The profit arising from the other firm is, therefore, legally assessable in the in the hands of the assessee. So stating, he dismissed the appeal. 6. The assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also concurred with the view taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 7. It will be seen from the above narrative that, during the relevant period, Shankarappa Munavalli became a partner in another firm, not in his individual capacity, but as a representative of the assesses-firm. The Income Tax Act, 1961, requires the assessment of the total income of the firm first and then the apportionment of the same among the partners. This method cannot be given a go-by merely because the share income derived from M/s. Batli Munavalli & Co., has already suffered tax. 8. The Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in concluding that there was no question of double taxation involved. The double taxation presupposes the same income being assessed twice in the hands of the same assessee. The position is quite different in the instant case. 9. 8. The Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in concluding that there was no question of double taxation involved. The double taxation presupposes the same income being assessed twice in the hands of the same assessee. The position is quite different in the instant case. 9. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative and against the assessee.