Y.R. MEENA, J.M. These two appeals are by assessee against order of Competent Authority under s. 269F of IT Act. issue before us is whether competent authority was justified in acquiring property in question. relevant facts are that Shri Ratan Lal S/o Shri Gujarmal Jain purchased plot No. D-73 Mangal Marg, Jaipur for Rs. 70,000 by two sale deeds indicating consideration for each half portion @ Rs. 35,000. On report of Inspector of Income-tax, notice was issued to assessee as to why property i.e. plot in question should not be acquired under s. 269F of Act. In response to notice, assessee submitted that sale proceeds appeared in sale deeds are correct purchase price. plot in question was not converted by UIT Jaipur. No NOC has been issued till sale. Inspector has unnecessarily taken value of plot at very high. Therefore, property should not be acquired under s. 269F of IT Act. Competent Authority has relied on Inspector's report and after approval of Commissioner passe order under s. 269F of Act. Being aggrieved assessee came in appeal before us. submission of ld. Counsel for assessee Shri Ranka was that Inspector is not expert valuer. Acquisition on basis of his report is illegal and void. In view of Circular No. 455 dt. 16th May, 1986 printed at (1986) 54 CTR (St) 27: (1986) 159 ITR 105 (St) when property is less than five lakhs in value, it should not be acquired under s. 269F. Shri Ranka further submitted that burden is on Revenue to prove that fair market value was more than what was indicated in sale deed. Revenue has failed to discharge burden. Therefore, acquisition under s. 269F is uncalled for. He further submitted that sub- registrar who has registered sale deed is equally competent to question value of land if assessee, has shown less value than fair market value. said authority has not raised any such objection. He relied on CIT vs. Rattan Chand Sood & Ors. (1986) 57 CTR (Del) 40: (1987) 166 ITR 497 (Del), CIT vs. Smt. Vimlaben Bhagwandas Patel & Anr. (1979) 13 CTR (Guj) 27: (1979) 118 ITR 134 (Guj), Subhkaran Chowdhury & Ors. Vs. IAC & Ors. (1979) 118 ITR 777 (Cal), Sarabhai M. Chemical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. P. N. Mittal., IAC of IT & Anr. (1980) 16 CTR (Guj) 315: (1980) 126 ITR 1 (Guj), Unique Associates Co- operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1985) 152 ITR 144 (Bom), All India Reporter Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Competent Authority, IAC of IT & Ors. (1986) 162 ITR 697 (Bom), CIT vs. Amrit Sports Industries (1983) 37 CTR (P & H) 290: (1984) 145 ITR 231 (P & H) and 108 ITR 514 (sic). On other hand, ld. DR Shri Iyer relied on order of Competent Authority. We have heard rival submissions and considered material on record. facts are not in dispute that by these two sale deeds relating to plot No. D-73, assessee has purchased entire plot for Rs. 70,000. value taken be Inspector is Rs. 56,780 for half plot and it just doubled for entire plot i.e. Rs. 1,13,560 as against value shown by assessee of Rs. 70,000 only. After this another Inspector was also deputed to find out fact. He also in his report submitted that looking into location, facilities in area, value of plot should be taken as has been shown by his predecessor. AAC has simply relied on reports of Inspectors even though they are not experts. Secondly, purchaser and seller both have given affidavits that price shown in sale deeds is real consideration of plot in question. No under consideration of sale etc. has been shown by Department, such as tht some consideration has been passed by purchaser to seller over and above sale consideration shown in sale deed. Board's Circular No. 455 dt. 16th May, 1986 provides that Board has decided proceeding under s. 269C will not be initiated in respect of immovable property for which apparent consideration is rs 5 lakhs or less. In case acquisition proceedings started after 1st April , 1986 it is also decided that proceedings will be dropped if entire consideration is below Rs. 5 lakhs. In case of Rattanchand Sood, (supra) there Lordships of Delhi High Court have referred to circular and held that in consequence of Circular, effect is that after 1st April, 1986, proceedings earlier initiated should be dropped unless apparent consideration exceeds Rs. 5 lakhs. Following view taken by their Lordships, we agree with Shri Ranka. In CIT vs. Smt. Vimlaben Bhagwandas (supra) their Lordships have enumerated conditions precedent for exercise of jurisdiction for initiating acquisition proceedings They are: 1. Transfer of immovable property worth more than Rs. 25,000 in value; 2 Fair market value of property exceeding apparent consideration by 15 per cent; 3. Ulterior motive of tax evasion or concealment of income for such untrue statement of apparent consideration in instrument of transfer of such property, 4. Recording of reasons by Competent authority, 5. Publication of notice to that effect in Official Gazette. In case before us assessee well as seller has given affidavit that sale consideration shown in sale deed is real one and there is no underhand dealing. No contrary material has been brought on record by Department that assessee has given some own money as consideration to seller. Therefore, in absence of any material consideration shown in sale deed should be accepted as market value of property. In this case acquisition proceedings are started only on basis of Inspector's report who is not expert in valuation of properties. Therefore, in absence of experts opinion mere comparable cases which are of Bajaj Nagar cannot be based for value of plot which is not approved and no NOC has been issued by concerned authority. Therefore, taking into account facts and objections raised before competent authority and Circular of CBDT which has been considered by their Lordships of Delhi High Court in latest case (Supra) and also fact that Shri Ramgopal has admitted consideration of plot in question as true in his affidavit to effect that no underhand dealing has been brought on record, we do not find any justification in order for acquisition of authority. Accordingly order of competent authority is cancelled. In result appeals of assessee are allowed. *** RATAN LAL JAIN v. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ACQ.)