Law:

Section:

Section 54 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 read with section 65(e) and 74 of the Evidence Act - Disclosure of information - Plaintiff's deceased husband and defendants were partners in firm - He deposited with firm various sums from time to time which were duly credited in accounts of firm on understanding that money so deposited should be paid back to plaintiff with interest whenever she demanded - After husband's death, plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of amount deposited with firm - Liability of defendants was based primarily upon certified copies of income tax returns of defendant's firm for earlier year - Trial court decreed suit filed by plaintiff - Thus, instant appeal was filed by defendants alleging that certified copies of income-tax returns were inadmissible in evidence and that even if they were there was no proof of signatures of partners (defendants) on said returns - Whether income-tax returns as well as statement filed in support of returns were public documents within meaning of section 74 of Indian Evidence Act and therefore certified copies thereof would be admissible under section 65(e) of said Act - Held, yes - Whether, further, certified copies of public documents need not contain any endorsement as to person who obtained them - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, it was unnecessary to prove signatures of particular partners on certified copies of income-tax returns - Held, yes - Whether, in view of aforesaid, it could be concluded that certified copies of returns were rightly admitted in evidence and that they were properly used against defendants - Held, yes FACTS The plaintiffs deceased husband and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were brothers, the other defendants being the sons of the second defendant. The three brothers were partners in a business. The plaintiffs husband deposited with the firm various sums from time to time which were duly credited in the accounts of the firm on the understanding that the moneys so deposited should be paid back to her with interest whenever she demanded. The firm's business being a family business of defendants Nos. 1 to 6, all the defendants were liable for the amount due to her. The trial court found…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492