ORDER BY THE COURT: The petitioner, by means of this petition, has challenged the order dt. 10th Feb., 1988, Annexure-B to the petition, passed by the CIT, Jabalpur for the asst. yrs. 1978-79 to 1981-82, which was directed against the order of the ITO dt. 6th March, 1982, for the asst. yr. 1978-79, order dt. 6th March, 1982, for the asst. yr. 1979-80, order dt. 23rd Dec., 1982 for the asst. yr. 1980-81 and the order dt. 23rd March, 1984, for the asst. yr. 1981-82 imposing interest and penalty on the petitioner and the prayer is made for quashing this annexure. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the order passed by the ITO imposing penalty as well as the interest, the petitioner approached the CIT, Jabalpur under s. 273A of the IT Act, 1961 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the CIT is founded on the premises that the petitioner has failed to pay the taxes levied on him nor has made any satisfactory arrangement for payment for the asst. yrs. 1978-79 to 1981-82 and the same is bad as the CIT has failed to consider the material and the argument of the lawyer as advanced in regard to the payment of the tax in respect of the aforesaid financial years. 4. The CIT has recorded a finding which is dependent upon determination of the fact. This Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is not supposed to interfere with the finding of the fact assuming itself to be the AO. Learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to point out from the petitioner whether he had made averment relating to the payment of the taxes and the arguments were advanced before the concerned authority and the concerned authority did not consider the same, the learned counsel was not able to point out any such averment in the petition. Assuming that it was done so, then the appropriate forum in such circumstances is to approach the same authority and not before this Court. Assuming that it was done so, then the appropriate forum in such circumstances is to approach the same authority and not before this Court. The Supreme Court in a like situation in the case of Daman Singh vs. State of Punjab AlR 1985 SC 973 observed as: 13 It is not unusual for parties and counsel to raise innumerable grounds in the petitions and memoranda of appeal, etc., but, later, confine themselves, in the course of argument to a few only of those grounds, obviously because the rest of the grounds are considered even by them to be untenable. No party or counsel is thereafter entitled to make a grievance that the grounds not argued were not considered. If indeed any ground which was argued was not considered it should be open to the party aggrieved to draw the attention of the Court making the order to it by filing a proper application for review or clarification. The time of the superior Courts is not to be wasted in enquiring into the question whether a certain ground to which no reference is found in the judgment of the subordinate Court was argued before that Court or not?" 5. In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Security amount deposited, if any, may be refunded. This order will not come in the way of the petitioner if he approaches the concerned authority for considering the matter on the merit.