JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short "the ITAT"), dated November 21, 2008, and is relevant for the block period April 1, 1995, to March 20, 2002. 2. The brief facts emerging on the face of record are that search operation came to be carried out by the authorised officers of the Income-tax Department on March 20, 2002, at the residential and business premises of Vaidya Shri Narayan Das Swami at Phulera. During the course of search, incriminating documents in the nature of computerized project report was found and seized, which pertained to the respondent-assessee, as per annexure A-23 pages 1-12 of the panchnama dated March 20, 2002. On the basis of the said proceedings, notice under section 158BD read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act came to be issued requiring the assessee-respondent to file a return as contemplated under section 158BD read with section 158BC. The assessee submitted a return for the block assessment in Form No. 2B declaring nil income. It is the case of the respondent that the assessee is a private limited company and was incorporated on January 12, 1996, with an object of manufacturing cables, conductors, electrical transformers, etc., and is in the same business since 1997 and has been submitting its return of income regularly. It revealed from the annexure A-23 seized from the premises of Vaidya Narayan Das Swami and as per the project report it transpired that the assessee had prepared a project report for availing of loan from the financial institutions on plot of land bearing F-551-A, Road No. 6 VKIA, Jaipur, and, thereafter, after initial purchase, work shed building construction was made and the respondent-assessee started production from January 15, 1997. On being queried about the project report, the assessee replied that the assessee to obtain loan got prepared the project report for submitting to various financial institutions from where the assessee was willing to obtain loan, namely, Rajasthan Financial Corporation (RFC) and/or State Bank of India and/or SBBJ and it was submitted that it is a tentative project report so that the company may obtain a loan and effectively make alteration and modification and construction necessary for the industry, which was needed by it. On being queried to prove the source of income and the investment as per the project report is concerned, it was submitted that whatever investment has been made is duly reflected in the books of account. However, the books of account have been lost and even an intimation report was submitted with the Vishwakarma Police Station. Further, in the alternative, it was submitted that it contains only projection of the figures and do not suggest that the assessee has made any investment or incurred cost to that extent. In the last alternative, it was also submitted that the project report did not pertain to it and merely because the name of the assessee finds place, there is neither signatures of any of the directors or relatives on these papers nor the date has not been mentioned and even the authenticity of the report is doubtful. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied and dissatisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee an addition of Rs. 36,21,692 was made as per the figures mentioned in the project report. 3. On the objection of initiating proceedings under section 158BD of the Act that the proceedings have wrongly been initiated, the Assessing Officer held that the proceedings have been validly initiated and, accordingly, assessment came to be finalised. 4. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, an appeal came to be preferred before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on both the issues, namely, challenging the proceedings under section 158BD so also the aforesaid addition of Rs. 36,21,692. However, in so far as the initiation of proceedings under section 158BD is concerned, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) came to the conclusion that the order is within the jurisdiction. In so far as the addition made on the basis of the project report is concerned, after considering the entire factual matrix and the explanation offered by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) came to the conclusion that there is no justification for the said addition and, accordingly, deleted the said addition. 5. Dissatisfied with the said order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), an appeal came to be preferred by the Revenue before the Tribunal while cross-objections were filed by the respondent-assessee. The Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition on the basis of the project report to the extent of Rs. 36,21,692, the assessee challenged the initiation of proceedings under section 158BD. 6. The Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition on the basis of the project report to the extent of Rs. 36,21,692, the assessee challenged the initiation of proceedings under section 158BD. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the entire issue, came to the conclusion that not only the addition has rightly been deleted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) amounting to Rs. 36,21,692, but also accepted the contention on behalf of the assessee that the proceedings initiated under section 158BD was bad and even quashed the assessment. It is this order of the Tribunal, which has been assailed before us. 7. Shri R.B. Mathur, learned counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the Tribunal has in a summary manner come to the conclusion that the proceedings under section 158BD is not proper without bringing any material on record. He contended that the incriminating document, namely, project report having been found in the search, an Assessing Officer could validly form his opinion on such project report and proceedings under section 158BD could have been initiated. He would further contend that the Tribunal has erred in law in quashing the assessment. He would further contend that the proceedings under section 158BD have rightly been initiated as incriminating documents were found in a search on the premises of Vaidya Narayan Das Swami, which pertained to the respondent and the Assessing Officer assessing Vaidya Narayan Das Swami could not have acted upon the said incriminating documents as it did not pertain to him and related to the present assessee and only the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction could have initiated proceedings under section 158BD and which was rightly initiated. He would further contend that there had been proper basis and prima facie evidence to initiate the proceedings under section 158BD and only prima facie basis has to be formed and once the incriminating document relating to the assessee, may be they were signed or not, does not make any difference. The Assessing Officer having the jurisdiction over the assessee had no option except to initiate the said proceedings. 8. He would further contend that the assessee got prepared the project report and naturally acted upon it and the figures did not match/tally with the figures shown in the return of income over the years. The Assessing Officer having the jurisdiction over the assessee had no option except to initiate the said proceedings. 8. He would further contend that the assessee got prepared the project report and naturally acted upon it and the figures did not match/tally with the figures shown in the return of income over the years. He would further contend that the books of account were stated to be lost when queries were raised to produce the books of account. If the said figures were part of books of account and the assessee came out with the plea that the books had been lost and just to create evidence requisition slip of one of the police stations was produced, which is insufficient to come to the said conclusion. The Tribunal ought not to have decided the issue on the merits and to give its own conclusion and in deleting Rs. 36,21,692 on the merits. 9. He would further contend that none of the figures in the project report matched with the figures even as per the return of income and/or profit and loss account/balance-sheet, which were on record over the years. He contended that substantial questions of law arise out of the order of the Tribunal for consideration of this court. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue and have perused the impugned order. 11. In our view, the Assessing Officer having found the project report/incriminating document relating to the assessee in the course of search, he had no option but to act under section 158BD, which appears prima facie in order. The hon'ble apex court in the case of Manish Maheshwari v. Asst. CIT reported in [2007] 289 ITR 341 (SC) ; AIR 2007 SC 1696 , had an occasion to consider the point with reference to question No. 1. In the aforesaid case, the Assessing Officer did not have the jurisdiction over the case of the above assessee but some other Assessing Officer had jurisdiction over the matter and the Assessing Officer neither recorded any satisfaction, which was mandatory nor had it transferred the case to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the matter and proceeded to assess himself when he had no jurisdiction on that assessee. Consequently, the hon'ble apex court in the facts of above case observed as under (page 349) : "Law in this regard is clear and explicit. Consequently, the hon'ble apex court in the facts of above case observed as under (page 349) : "Law in this regard is clear and explicit. The only question which arises for our consideration is as to whether the notice dated February 6, 1996, satisfies the requirements of section 158BD of the Act. The said notice does not record any satisfaction on the part of the Assessing Officer. Documents and other assets recovered during search had not been handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction in the matter. No proceeding under section 158BC had been initiated. There is, thus, a patent non-application of mind. A prescribed form had been utilized. Even the status of the assessee had not been specified. It had only been mentioned that the search was conducted in the month of November, 1995. No other information had been furnished. The pro visions contained in Chapter XIV-B are drastic in nature. It has draconian consequences. Such a proceeding can be initiated, it would bear repetition to state, only if a raid is conducted. When the provisions are attracted, legal presumptions are raised against the assessee. The burden shifts on the assessee. Audited accounts for a period of ten years may have to be reopened . . . As the Assessing Officer has not recorded its satisfaction, which is mandatory; nor has it transferred the case to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgments of the High Court cannot be sustained, which are set aside accordingly. The appeals are allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs." 12. However, in the present case, as observed, the authorised officer did pass on information to the Assessing Officer, who had the jurisdiction and who proceeded ahead to assess. Therefore, in our view, in so far as, question No. 1 is concerned, the Tribunal was not justified in quashing the assessment when the present Assessing Officer did have the jurisdiction, as he was the relevant Assessing Officer of the present assessee. 13. However, addition was also challenged by the assessee on the merits before the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal. Hence, we consider the second question on the merits. 14. 13. However, addition was also challenged by the assessee on the merits before the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal. Hence, we consider the second question on the merits. 14. On a perusal of facts found we notice that the Tribunal as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) both the appellate authorities have given a concurrent finding of fact that the assessee-company got made the project report at different point of time for submitting them to financial institutions. The project report, which was submitted to the RFC with the total project cost of Rs. 61.40 lakhs against which RFC, vide letter dated March 29, 1996, intimated to sanction Rs. 31.25 lakhs against the application of Rs. 38 lakhs made by the respondent-assessee and it is an admitted fact that the assessee did not avail of any loan on the said project report. Similarly, the assessee-company also furnished a fresh project report indicating the cost of project at Rs. 65.06 lakhs to SBBJ but the SBBJ Bank, vide its letter dated October 23, 1996, sanctioned term loan of Rs. 25 lakhs and cash credit limit of Rs. 10 lakhs and these facts indicate that the project reports which were found in search were not acted upon by the assessee even for submitting the said reports before the RFC/SBBJ. It is also a finding of fact that the Assessing Officer in making the addition has compared the figures of the project report with the actual figures as per the balance-sheet as at March 31, 1997, and not as per the balance-sheet as on March 31, 1998, when the project was fully implemented. It is the claim that the figures match with the figures of the balance-sheet as at March 31, 1998, whereas the Assessing Officer considered with the figures as on March 31, 1997, when even it was under construction. 15. In our view, the Tribunal came to a correct conclusion and no addition was called for. Merely because a project report shows an estimated figure does not prove that undisclosed investment to the tune of Rs. 36,21,692 was really made by the assessee-respondent. 15. In our view, the Tribunal came to a correct conclusion and no addition was called for. Merely because a project report shows an estimated figure does not prove that undisclosed investment to the tune of Rs. 36,21,692 was really made by the assessee-respondent. Addition has to be based on proper foundation and cannot be made merely on the basis of such an estimated project report, which one may prepare for diverse purposes and really do not indicate as to actual investment having made by the assessee. Burden under section 69 is on the Revenue and it failed. 16. The Assessing Officer has blindly made the addition merely on the basis of the project report without bringing further evidence in the shape of say a valuation report which may have been obtained by the Assessing Officer from its valuation officer to indicate prima facie that investment to such an extent was made, then, in our view, the Assessing Officer could have been well justified to support its addition based on the project report vis-a-vis the valuation report or any other material evidence. However, nothing is apparent on the face of record as to whether any exercise in this direction was made or not. Therefore, in our view, both the appellate authorities have come to a concurrent finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence on record and no substantial question of law can be said to arise out of the impugned order as, it is entirely based on the finding of fact. The first question shall be only of academic interest and would be examined in an appropriate case. 17. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed in limine. *******