Although the Assessing Officer mentioned section 69 while making the addition, the assessment order clearly discussed suppression of sale consideration under section 50C. The Tribunal held that the incorrect reference to section 69 was merely a typographical error, which was rightly corrected by the Commissioner (Appeals), and did not affect the validity of the assessment.  The assessee challenged the assessment on the ground that the assessment order did not bear a Document Identification Number (DIN). The Tribunal held that, in the absence of any material showing prejudice to the assessee, the assessment could not be treated as invalid merely for want of a DIN, particularly when the issue was pending before the Supreme Court The assessment order was manually signed by the Assessing Officer and did not contain a digital signature. The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused by the absence of a digital signature, the assessment order was valid.  The assessee disclosed sale consideration of ₹21 lakhs whereas the stamp valuation authority adopted the value of the property at ₹23.40 lakhs. The Tribunal held that as the stamp duty value exceeded the permissible tolerance limit, the provisions of section 50C were rightly invoked and the difference was liable to be taxed. The assessee contended that the assessment was invalid for want of approval under section 153D. The Tribunal found that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner was available on record and rejected the challenge to the validity of the assessment.  (AY. 2018-19).