THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.25532 of 2009 Dated:20.07.2010 Between: L.B.Prasada Rao. …Petitioner and Tax Recovery Officer, Range-9, O/o.Tax Recovery Officer, 1st floor, ‘B’ Block, I.T.Towers, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.25532 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The Tax Recovery Officer (first respondent herein) issued notice dated 29.06.2009 calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs.49,402/-, along with interest under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the Income Tax Department. Thereafter, a notice was issued on 20.10.2009, under Rule 83 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, calling upon the petitioner to appear and produce evidence with regards payment made, if any. The tax arrears, as referred to in the notice dated 29.06.2009, relate to the assessment years 1983-1984 and 1984-1985. The petitioner, vide letter dated 02.07.2009, informed the Tax Recovery Officer that, to the best of his knowledge, he did not owe any amount towards tax. The petitioner, vide letter dated 02.11.2009, requested the second respondent herein to furnish copies of the assessment orders for the years 1983-1984 and 1984-1985, and the revised assessment orders for the assessment years 1983-1984 and 1984-1985 passed consequent to the orders of the Commissioner, Income Tax, dated 16.10.1987. It is his grievance that the order copies sought for were not furnished to him. In his counter affidavit the first respondent would state that he is only required to act on the basis of the certificate issued by the 2nd respondent Income Tax Officer and that it is not open to him to go behind the certificate to ascertain whether or not any tax is liable to be paid by the petitioner. We do not propose to go into the question whether or not the petitioner is liable to pay the tax, along with interest under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, as sought to be recovered by the first respondent under the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act. As the petitioner has requested the second respondent to furnish copies of the orders aforementioned, we consider it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to furnish the details, as sought for by the petitioner in his letter dated 02.11.2009, within a period of four weeks from today. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 20.07.2010 vs