Certified copies of income-tax returns are admissible despite confidentiality restrictions, and signatures need not be separately proved.

Certified copies of income-tax returns and accompanying statements were treated as admissible secondary evidence because the returns were regarded as public documents under the Evidence Act. Section 54 of the Indian Income Tax Act was read as protecting the public servant from being compelled to produce the records or testify about them, but not as barring use of certified copies already obtained. Separate proof of the partners' signatures on the originals was held unnecessary where the certified copies themselves showed the firm's liability. A plaintiff suing in her own right was not deprived of maintainability merely because she also acted as legal representative of a deceased partner.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether certified copies of income-tax returns and accompanying statements were admissible in evidence notwithstanding the confidentiality provision in section 54 of the Indian Income Tax Act; (ii) whether the signatures on the originals had to be proved before the certified copies could be used against the firm; and (iii) whether the plaintiff, as legal representative of a deceased partner, could maintain the suit for the amount claimed.

Issue (i): whether certified copies of income-tax returns and accompanying statements were admissible in evidence notwithstanding the confidentiality provision in section 54 of the Indian Income Tax Act.

Analysis: Returns and statements filed under the income-tax law were treated as public documents. Certified copies of such public documents were therefore admissible under the Evidence Act. The confidentiality of section 54 restrained the public servant from being compelled to produce the documents or give evidence about them, but it did not prevent a party from producing certified copies already obtained. The fact that the copies were obtained by someone other than the assessee did not affect admissibility.

Conclusion: The certified copies were admissible in evidence and were properly relied upon.

Issue (ii): whether the signatures on the originals had to be proved before the certified copies could be used against the firm.

Analysis: The certified copies were copies of public documents kept by a public officer and were presumed to be what they purported to be. Since they were shown to be income-tax returns and accompanying statements relating to the firm, separate proof of the signatures of the partners on the originals was unnecessary. The statements in the accompanying schedules amounted to admissions of the firm's liability.

Conclusion: Proof of the partners' signatures was not required and the documents could be used against the defendants.

Issue (iii): whether the plaintiff, as legal representative of a deceased partner, could maintain the suit for the amount claimed.

Analysis: The claim was for money belonging to the plaintiff in her own right and was not converted into a mere partnership-account claim because she also represented the estate of a deceased partner. Her individual right to recover the amount was not lost by reason of that representative capacity.

Conclusion: The suit was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all substantial grounds and the decree against the defendants was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Certified copies of income-tax returns that are public documents are admissible as secondary evidence under the Evidence Act despite the confidentiality of the income-tax law, and separate proof of the original signatures is unnecessary when the documents themselves establish the firm's liability.

---