Assessee, an individual engaged in the business of manufacturing, export and selling Form-H electrical wiring accessories, filed a return processed under section 143(1). The case was reopened under section 147 on the ground that assessee purchased an immovable property for consideration significantly lower than the circle rate. Assessee held a 1/3rd share in the property. On assessee’s request disputing the circle rate vis-à-vis FMV, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to DVO, who determined FMV at ₹5.16 crores; the assessee’s 1/3rd share came to ₹1.72 crores, leaving a difference of ₹15.14 lakhs, being less than 10 per cent of the consideration. Assessing Officer, after considering the assessee’s response, applied the amendment to section 50C and CBDT Circular No. 8/2018 (treated as retrospective), and accepted that a variation below 10 per cent between sale consideration and DVO-determined value was to be ignored, thereby accepting the returned income. PCIT invoked section 263 (including Explanation 2) to revise the assessment, holding that Circular No. 8/2018 applied prospectively and that the difference between the stamp duty value and the sale consideration should have been added to the assessee’s income. On appeal, the Tribunal held that since the view of PCIT was not supported by any judicial authority, his action in treating the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue was merely a change of opinion and unsustainable. (AY. 2016-17)