Income-tax assessment copies are admissible in evidence, and partnership may be inferred from admissions and corroborative conduct.

Confidentiality provisions in the Income-tax Act do not stop an assessee from producing copies of assessment orders already in his possession, and a true certified copy of such a public document remains admissible in evidence when its authenticity is sufficiently shown. The absence of the exact statutory certificate form is not fatal if official comparison and authentication establish correctness. The material also shows that partnership can be inferred from admissions, corroborative assessment records, witness testimony, financing conduct, and surrounding circumstances, including failure to seek recovery of advances. These principles support admissibility of tax records and factual proof of partnership liability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether copies of income-tax assessment orders could be used in evidence notwithstanding the confidentiality provision in the Income-tax Act; (ii) Whether the evidence on record proved that the appellant was a partner in the firm and liable for the debt.

Issue (i): Whether copies of income-tax assessment orders could be used in evidence notwithstanding the confidentiality provision in the Income-tax Act.

Analysis: The confidentiality clause protected records from compulsory production by public servants, but it did not prevent an assessee from producing copies already supplied to him. An income-tax assessment order was treated as a public document, and a true certified copy of such an order was admissible in evidence. The absence of the exact statutory form of certificate was not fatal where the copy bore official comparison and authentication sufficient to show its correctness. Such copies could also support other oral evidence as corroboration.

Conclusion: The copies of the assessment orders were not barred by confidentiality and were admissible, subject to proof that they were certified copies.

Issue (ii): Whether the evidence on record proved that the appellant was a partner in the firm and liable for the debt.

Analysis: The Court relied on the assessment orders as corroborative material, the direct testimony of a partner, the statement that the appellant admitted the partnership, and surrounding conduct showing that he financed the business in a manner consistent with partnership rather than a simple loan. The appellant's failure to take steps for recovery of the large sums advanced was treated as an important circumstance supporting the inference of partnership. The documentary attempts to register the firm in the appellant's name also supported the conclusion.

Conclusion: The appellant was proved to be a partner in the firm and was liable for the decree.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the merits and the decree of the court below was affirmed with costs to the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: Confidentiality provisions governing income-tax records do not prohibit an assessee from producing assessment copies in his possession, and a certified copy of a public document is admissible where its authenticity is sufficiently shown; partnership may be inferred from admissions, corroborative documents, and consistent conduct.

---