9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (9) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e six in number on the following allegations : The plaintiffs deceased husband Subbarayadu and the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were brothers the other defendants being the sons of the second defendant. The three brothers were partners in a business known as Sri Satyanarayana Rice Mill. The plaintiff deposited with the mill various sums from time to time which were duly credited in the accounts of the mill on the understanding that the moneys so deposited should be paid back to her with interest whenever she demanded. The mill business being a family business of defendants Nos. 1 to 6, all the defendants are liable for the amount due to her. The trial court found that the first defendant was not a partner of the business and decreed the claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no proof of the signatures either of the second defendant or of the other partner on the returns and that therefore the relevant entries therein cannot be used as admissions made either by his client or his partner so as to bind the firm. His contention is elaborated thus : Section 54 of the Indian Income Tax Act enacts that all particulars contained in any statement made, return furnished or accounts or documents produced under the provisions of that Act etc. shall be treated as confidential, that on court shall, save as provided in that Act, be entitled to require any public servant to produce before it any such return, accounts, documents or record or any part of any such record or to give evidence before it in respect thereof, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is no doubt true that in the case before the Full Bench it was the assessee himself who sought to put the returns in evidence in support of his own case. But I am not prepared to accede to the contention of the appellants learned counsel that the Full Bench decision therefore should be understood as governing only cases where certified copies are sought to be used by the assessee himself. I entertain no doubt that the decision of Burn and Stodart, JJ., in Mythili v. Janaki was overruled, as the head-note in the Full Bench decision points out. The learned Chief Justice after referring to the reasoning of the learned Judges observed as follows : In their opinion to allow a person who comes into possession of a certified copy of a retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose income the return relates, or any other adult member of the family who has been treated as representing it. 5. The argument is that the original plaintiff in the present case was not one of those specified persons in relation to the exhibits filed by her and that the copies were improperly given to her and that therefore they should not be allowed to be used. In the first place, this contention is, it seems to me, opposed to the Full Bench ruling because if, as they have pointed out, the return is a public document there is nothing either in section 54 of the Indian Income Tax Act or section 65 of the Evidence Act which prohibits a party from putting a certified copy of it in evidence. Section 54 is limited in its purpose. As observ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... residency Magistrate who was trying the case he held that it was inadmissible in evidence on account of section 54 of the Income Tax Act. In revision, it was ruled by the learned Judges that the document was admissible and they declined to accept the contention that the effect of holding the police to be entitled to adopt the course they have adopted in this case is to defeat the intention of the Legislature as disclosed in section 54 of the Income Tax Act. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents has invited my attention to the decision reported in Buchibai v. Nagpur University and has submitted that the plaintiff in the present case was entitled to obtain copies of the Income Tax return of the firm in her capacity as the legal repr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rson who procured them. I, therefore, reject this contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. 8. The next argument of Mr. Sankara Sastry for the appellants is that even if the certified copies are admissible, the signatures of the second defendant and Raghavayya on the originals of Exhibits A-5 and A-8 must be proved and no such proof being forthcoming they cannot be used as against the firm. It is true that sections 67 - 73 of the Evidence Act apply to original documents as well as to the secondary evidence thereof. In the present case it is to be noted that these are certified copies of public documents in the custody of a public officer and they may be presumed to be what they purport to be, that is, copies of the Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
