- (1.) WE have heard Shri P.M.N. Singh, the learned Addl. Advocate General for the petitioner and Sri Sri Krishna, the learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents or record, it appears that the plea raised in the instant writ petition is only a circuituous process to delay and avoid payment of taxes and to comply with the order in assessment proceeding. The claim made in the writ petition is that the application under S. 154 of the IT Act, 1961 has not been disposed of by the CIT, Bareilly, respondent No. 1. In our view, there is no apparent error on the face of the record, which is required to be considered and, as such, we cannot accept the plea raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner. There being no merit, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, it will be open to the writ petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal is the same is already not time-barred.;