The assessee sold the property for Rs 50 lakhs . The stamp authorities valued the property at Rs 60 ,72,000. The Assessing Officer assessed the difference as undisclosed income .  CIT ( A) affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer .  On appeal the Tribunal held that There is no rule of law to effect that value determined for purposes of stamp duty is actual consideration passed between parties to sale. Apart from stamp duty valuation, there is nothing on record to suggest that assessee received extra sale consideration . Followed  Dinesh Kumar Mittal v. ITO (1992) 193 ITR 770 (All.) (HC)    The Tribunal also held that the AO had no cogent material available to satisfy himself about requirement of Section 69 and in absence of it, reference could not be made under Section 142A of the Act , accordingly the addition was deleted . followed Anand Banwarilal Adhukia v.  Dy.CIT ( 2017) 148 DTR 262 (Guj.) (HC)  (AY 2010-11)