The assessee purchased a property for ₹3.15 crore, whereas the stamp duty valuation on the date of registration (31-12-2015) was ₹4.12 crore. The Assessing Officer treated the difference as unexplained investment u/s 69B, while the CIT(A) upheld the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) holding that the benefit of the proviso could not be extended in the absence of a written agreement. On appeal, the Tribunal held that the assessee had entered into an oral agreement with the sellers in May 2015 and paid advances of ₹54 lakh and ₹1.61 crore after deducting TDS, duly reflected in Form 26QB mentioning the full consideration of ₹3.15 crore. The bank loan application and affidavits of the sellers also corroborated the consideration agreed. The Tribunal observed that the increase in stamp duty value between May and December 2015 was only on account of a change in the method of valuation introduced by Circular dated 04-11-2015 by the Stamp Authorities, and not due to any real appreciation in the market value. Since the ready reckoner rate per sq. metre remained unchanged throughout the year, the difference was held to be notional. It was further held that the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) speaks of an “agreement fixing the consideration” and does not mandatorily require a written agreement. On facts, the oral agreement stood substantiated by documentary evidence. Accordingly, the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) was deleted. Tribunal observed that decision  is  based the facts and circumstances unique to assessee’s case and therefore the same cannot be applied as precedent in any other case.  (ITA No. 4154/Mum/2025, dt. 02-09-2025 )( AY. 2016 -17  )