RAM RATTAN, A.M. These are appeals by three transferees against order of Competent Authority passed under s. 269F(6) of IT Act, 1961, acquiring property house No. B-II, 1555/1-1555/2, Kucha Seth Sant Dass, Ludhiana. This property belonged to three persons i.e., Smt. Surinder Kaur, Smt. Kamaljit Kaur and Smt. Harjit Kaur, having 1/3rd share each in two properties. Total apparent consideration is Rs. 6 lacs. Eacs of three transferors, therefore, sold properties individually of apparent consideration of Rs. 2 lacs. There are five transferees and aggregate apparent consideration in hands of each of transferees is Rs. 1,20,000. There were 15 registered sale deeds and different shares were registered in multiples of apparent consideration of Rs. 40,000 each. Therefore, apparent consideration in case of each different individual is Rs. 40,000 and in aggregate in case of each transferor at Rs. 2 lacs. In either case, apparent consideration individually or in aggregate either in case of transferors or transferees is below Rs. 5 lacs. learned Counsel for transferees pointed out that Central Board o f Direct Taxes has issued circular No. 455 (F. No. 316/38-85/WT) dt. 16th May, 1986 reported in (1986) 54 CTR (ST) 27: (1986) 159 ITR (ST) 105 starting that w.e.f. 1st April, 1986 acquisition proceedings under s. 269C will not be initiated in respect of any immovable property for which apparent consideration is Rs. 5 lacs or less and that where acquisition proceedings have been initiated by issue of notice under s. 269D, proceedings will be dropped if apparent consideration of immovable property is below Rs. 5 lacs. Referring to this circular he urged that in cases of transferees and transferors apparent consideration being less than Rs. 5 lacs as noted above, transferees were entitled to benefit of above circular of Board and urged that order of Competent Authority be quashed. He further submitted that appellate proceedings were continuance of original proceedings and rehearing of matter and, therefore, Tribunal was competent to take cognizance of above circular of Board in appeals pending before it. learned Departmental Representative opposed contentions of learned Counsel for transferees and contended that this circular was applicable only in respect of proceedings pending before Competent Authority and not before Tribunal. Similar issue came up for consideration before us in case of Smt. Lal Devi vs. IAC (1987) 61 CTR (Trib) 18 (Chd): (1987) 28 TTJ (Chd) 336 and vide our order dt. 29th Oct., 1986 in IT Acq. A. No. 17 of 1986, we have taken view that appellate proceedings are continuance of proceedings before t h e Competent Authority. appellate authority can do what assessing authority can do. circular of Board is beneficial circular and administrative in nature. It was, therefore, applicable to all pending proceedings whether before assessing authority or appellate authority by virtue of various decisions relied upon before Tribunal. In view of circular of Board, Tribunal, therefore, quashed order of Competent Authority i n that case. For detailed reasons given therein, we have no hesitation in quashing order passed by Competent Authority in instant case also and is hereby quashed. Since we have cancelled order of Competent Authority in view of circular of Central Board of Direct Taxes, we do not consider it necessary to go into merits of order of Competent Authority at this stage. In result, all three appeals are allowed. *** KARAMJIT SINGH & ORS. v. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX