G. C. BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) THE assessee as well as the department, being aggrieved by the order dated 31. 7. 2000 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, have preferred these appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). These appeals relate to the assessment year 1995-96, the previous year being the financial year ending on 31. 3. 1995. a. The appeals before the Tribunal were heard by a bench comprised of three members, namely, Vice President and two judicial members. The Vice President by a separate order had dismissed the appeals of the appellants. The two judicial members while agreeing with the final conclusion drawn by the Vice President have written their separate order by giving reasons of their own. ( 2 ) THE impugned order of the Tribunal had been passed in eight appeals preferred by the eight assessees. These assessees are the erstwhile partners of a dissolved firm which was carrying on business of manufacturing beedies under the firm name M/s Mangalore Ganesha Beedi Works (in short the MGBW ). The firm was comprised of thirteen partners. It stood dissolved on 6. 12. 1987 by efflux of time. Thereafter, the business was carried on behalf of all the erstwhile partners as an association of persons till the affairs of the firm was finally wound up. The assets of the firm were ultimately sold under the orders of this court in a winding up proceedings w. e. f 21. 11. 1994. ( 3 ) BEFORE entering into the facts in detail, we find it advantageous to clarify a basic fact which has led to certain amount of confusion at all stages of the proceedings. This confusion had arisen primarily because of the name Mangalore Ganesha Beedi Works successively adopted by three different taxable entities, namely, the partnership firm, an AOP consisted of 13 members and another AOP consisting of 3 members. For the sake of convenience, we will be referring to these taxable entities as the firm, AOP-13 and AOP-3. At this very stage, we may state that in the year 1993, the number of members of AOP-13 reduced to twelve because one of its members namely, Sri Vinod Rao, having 7. 5% share, had transferred his interest by a deed of assignment dated 3. 7. At this very stage, we may state that in the year 1993, the number of members of AOP-13 reduced to twelve because one of its members namely, Sri Vinod Rao, having 7. 5% share, had transferred his interest by a deed of assignment dated 3. 7. 1993 to 7 out of other 12 members leading to rise in their shares. But, this assignment of interest does not have any material relevance for deciding the legal issues involves herein. ( 4 ) THE present assesses had filed their individual returns of income showing income from various sources. But, in the income so declared by them, they did not include their share of profit either in the capital gains arising out of the sale of the assets of the firm or their share in the income of AOP-13. The assessing officer while making assessment took the view that they are liable to pay tax on these incomes as well and assessed accordingly. While doing so, the assessing officer rejected the objections of the assessees that in the facts of the case, no capital gains arose in their hands. He also rejected their claim that the profits from the business could have been assessed only in the hands of AOP-13. The assessing officer completed the assessment as a protected measure since according to him he had a doubt as to whether the capital gains was to be assessed in the hands of the dissolved firm or its individual partners. He was also not certain about the right hand in which the business income was to be assessed i. e. , in the hands of the assessees or AOP-13. The CIT (Appeals) as also the Tribunal agreed with the view taken by the assessing officer. But the Tribunal while agreeing with the assessing officer that the assessee was liable to pay tax on his share of capital gains has given certain directions in relation to computation thereof which, according to the department, were not permissible in law. It is for this reason that both the assessees and the Department have preferred these appeals. About the Firm ( 5 ) SOME time in 1939, late S. Raghuram Prabhu started the business of manufacturing beedies. Subsequently, his brother-in-law, Sri Madhav Shenoy also joined him in the business as a partner. Thus, M/s Mangalore Ganesha Beedi Works, the firm, came into existence w. e. f 28. 3. About the Firm ( 5 ) SOME time in 1939, late S. Raghuram Prabhu started the business of manufacturing beedies. Subsequently, his brother-in-law, Sri Madhav Shenoy also joined him in the business as a partner. Thus, M/s Mangalore Ganesha Beedi Works, the firm, came into existence w. e. f 28. 3. 1940. Thereafter, it was reconstituted from time to time. The last reconstitution of the firm is evidenced by a partnership deed dt. 30. 6. 1982. According to the averments made in the deed, the last reconstitution of the firm became effective from 6. 6. 1982. According to the deed of partnership, the firm comprised of the following 13 partners ( 51 ) SO far as the proportionate income for 234 days is concerned, it does not require any elaborate consideration because AOP 13 had continued to carry on business till upto 20. 11. 1994 and this being a separate legal entity, proportionate income as worked out pursuant to order of this court for this period has to be necessarily assessed only in the hands of AOP-13. ( 52 ) ACCORDINGLY, in view of our foregoing findings, the Appeals filed by the assessee as well as the department are allowed in part. The parties to bear their costs. --- *** --- .