Judgment N.K.Sud, J. 1. The petitioner purchased factory building and structure on a plot of land measuring 1032 sq. yards on Railway Road, Gurgaon, vide registration deed dated July 7, 1973, for an apparent consideration of Rs. 1,25,000 from M/s. Tubular Rivets Private Limited, New Delhi. The competent authority made a reference to the Valuation Officer under Section 269-L of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") who determined the fair market value of the said property at Rs. 1,86,500 by applying the rental yield method. The competent authority also worked out the fair market value on the land and building method as well. The value of super structure was determined at Rs. 1,52,760 to which the value of land was added at Rs. 30,960. Since the valuation of the property determined by the Valuation Officer on the basis of the rental yield method and also on the land and building method, exceeded the apparent consideration by more than 15 per cent, proceedings for acquisition were initiated by issue of a notice under Section 269D of the Act. The assessee filed objections to the acquisition proceedings which were rejected by the competent authority and vide order dated March 31, 1978, the acquisition of the said property was ordered. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short "the Tribunal") which was allowed vide order dated July 28, 1978, and the acquisition order was set aside on the ground that the mandatory provisions of section 269D(2) of the Act had not been followed. 3. The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the Tribunal in this Court being Income-tax Appeal No. 15 of 1978. The said appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on the merits vide order dated July 16, 1987. Against the said order, the Revenue filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court which was dismissed vide order dated April 18, 1988. 4. It is at this stage that the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the vires of the provisions of Chapter XX-A of the Act under which proceedings had been initiated. 5. Against the said order, the Revenue filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court which was dismissed vide order dated April 18, 1988. 4. It is at this stage that the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the vires of the provisions of Chapter XX-A of the Act under which proceedings had been initiated. 5. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent, it has been pointed that in pursuance of the order of this Court, the Tribunal has redecided the matter afresh and quashed the proceedings under Section 269C of the Act. However, it has further been stated that the Revenue has filed an appeal against the said order of the Tribunal in this Court. 6. It is not necessary to prolong litigation in this case in view of the subsequent events. The Central Board of Direct Taxes has issued Circular No. 455 on May 16, 1986, reported at [1986] 159 ITR (St.) 105 wherein it has been stated that the Board has decided that where the acquisition proceedings had been initiated by issue of notice under Section 269D, the proceedings would be dropped if the apparent consideration of the immovable property was below Rs. 5 lakhs. This Court in CIT V/s. Export India Corporation P. Ltd., 1996 219 ITR 461, has held that on the basis of the said circular the proceedings have to be dropped even in cases where appeals were pending in the High Court. The judgment of this Court in Export India Corporation (P.) Etd.s case stands approved by the apex court in Mathew M. Thomas V/s. CIT, 1999 236 ITR 691. 7. In the present case, it is clear that the apparent consideration, as per the sale deed of the property in question, is Rs. 1,25,000 and, therefore, as per the Boards circular itself, the proceedings are liable to be dropped. In this view of the matter, notice dated January 7, 1974, under Section 269D(1) of the Act, annexure P-l, is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 8. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. Notice annexure P-l is quashed. In view of this, it is not necessary to go into the other issues raised in this writ petition. 9. No costs.