The assessee purchased the  vacant  land.  Assessing Officer  invoked provisions of S. .56(2)(vii) and held  that guideline value of said property is required to be adopted as value for which property has been acquired by assessee and differential between guideline value and sale consideration is to be brought to tax under provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act . Assessing Officer also held that since valuation report was not received by AO on date of framing scrutiny assessment, AO made additions in hands of assessee. Addition was confirmed by the CIT (A) .  On appeal  the Tribunal held that   amendments were made in guideline value in tune with market price albeit in 2017 while Tribunal is concerned  for  2016-17,  and no incriminating evidence is brought on record by Revenue which could evidence that assessee in fact paid higher sale consideration than actual sale consideration recorded in registered sale document albeit Section 56(2) is deeming section and Revenue is not obligated to bring on record any incriminating material in such circumstances to prove that actual sale consideration paid by tax-payer is higher than that recorded in sale document , thus keeping in view cumulative effect of aforesaid reasonings, additions as were made by AO which was later confirmed by CIT(A) are deleted as law cannot operate in vacuum de-horse ground realities which under surrounding circumstances in instant case lead to one and only one irresistible conclusion that additions as were made by authorities below are not sustainable in eye of law. (AY. 2016 -17-