Certificate jurisdiction cannot reopen settled facts; without proof of posting, no presumption under Evidence Act section 114 arose.

Certificate jurisdiction at the appeal stage is confined to determining whether a substantial question of law arises on the existing record. Where the Tribunal had already found no material to show that the cheques were posted from Delhi, the High Court could not reopen that factual basis while granting certificates. In the absence of the foundational fact of posting, no presumption under section 114, illustration (f), of the Evidence Act could be invoked. The certificate order therefore travelled beyond the proper limits of jurisdiction, and the appeals founded on those certificates were not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the certificates granted by the High Court for appeal were proper and whether the appeals were maintainable; whether any presumption under section 114, illustration (f), of the Evidence Act could arise on the facts after the Tribunal's finding that there was no material to show that the cheques were sent by post.

Analysis: The scope of jurisdiction at the stage of granting a certificate was limited to seeing whether a substantial question of law arose on the material already on record. The High Court, while granting certificates, could not ignore the Tribunal's finding accepted in the reference proceedings that the revenue had failed to prove that the cheques were posted from Delhi. In the absence of such a factual foundation, the question of invoking section 114, illustration (f), of the Evidence Act did not arise. The discussion in the certificate order proceeded on a point that was no longer open on the record and therefore exceeded the proper limits of certificate jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The certificates were improperly granted and the appeals based on them were not maintainable.

---