Assessee’s case was reopened for purchasing immovable property and there was a difference between the actual sale consideration and stamp duty value. AO made addition u/s 56(2(x) to the income of the total stamp duty value. The Pr. CIT observed that AO should have only added the difference to u/s. 56(2(x) and the actual purchase consideration as unexplained investment under s. 69A of the Act. Pr. CIT invoked jurisdiction u/s. 263 and initiated revision proceedings and set aside the order for fresh consideration. On Appeal, the Tribunal held that the Principal CIT has rightly invoked provisions of s. 263 of the Act as an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. On the issue of addition of actual purchase consideration as unexplained investment, the Tribunal held that the payments were not made in the current A.Y. and hence cannot be made in the subject assessment year. Due to contrary facts, the matter was set aside to the file of Pr. CIT for further inquiry.  (AY. 2018-19)