Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that the Assessing Officer in his limited scrutiny has verified the source of funds noted the sale consideration and paid and the expenses incurred for stamp duty and other charges . The assessee has filed a detailed reply in the course of assessment proceedings .Based on the reply the Assessing Officer did not make any addition . The Court held that the PCIT has not dealt with the  specific objection , but would fault the Assessing Officer for not invoking section  56(2)(vii)(b)(ii)   of the Act , merely on the ground that the guidance value was higher . The guidance value  is only an indicator  and will not always represent the fair market value of the property , therefore the invocation of revision power was not sustainable in law . ( TC/350/2020 dt .6-10 -2020 )( AY 2014 -15)