The short issue agitated before Tribunal by assessee is with respect to additions being made by authorities below on account of difference between sale consideration of property purchased by assessee and the guideline value of the said property for stamp duty purposes, by invoking provisions of s. 56(2)(vii) of the 1961 Act In the instant case before us, firstly the differential is only 3.711 per cent which is less than 5 per cent and there cannot be precision in all the cases that consideration should be same or higher than guideline value as there are several factors which determine the actual sale consideration , secondly the assessee challenged guideline value being adopted by the AO for the purposes of s. 56(2)(vii) of the 1961 Act and matter was referred by AO to valuation cell but report of the DVO is not brought on record by Revenue even before us while it was incumbent on revenue to bring on record report of DVO, thirdly the State Government has itself reduced the guideline value in 2017 which is indicator of the fact that the market value of the property was lower than guideline value which aspect is taken note by State Government and amendments were made in guideline value in tune with market price albeit in 2017 while we are presently seized of asst. yr. 2016-17, fourthly amendments were made by Finance Act, 2018 in s. 56(2) where in differential upto 5 per cent was allowed and no additions be made under deeming fiction of s. 56(2) of the 1961 Act albeit it is applicable from asst. yr. 2019-20 onwards and fifthly no incriminating evidence is brought on record by Revenue which could evidence that assessee in fact paid higher sale consideration than the actual sale consideration recorded in registered sale document albeit we are aware that s. 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 our aforesaid reasonings, we delete the additions as were made by the AO which was later confirmed by learned CIT(A)